s*3 


2-r  {JC's. **+ LjmlL 
-L  jv- 


No.  398. 


u 


Mi 


October  Term,  1910; 


Standard  Oil  Company  of  New  Jersey  et  al., 

Appellants,'  ;  > 

^  %'3  ' 

United  States  of  America,  Appellee. 


REPLY  BRIEF  FOR  THE  UNITED  STATES. 


GEORGE  W.  WICKERSHAM, 

Attorney  General. 

FRANK  B.  KELLOGG, 
CORDENIO  A.  SEVERANCE, 

/Special  Assistants  to  the  Attorney  General. 


¥.:r-.c  - 


•V 


•  r  -•'•4C 


A 


AkhJUA 


n  •  i*T 

V  \  .X-  S,  ;  ,  V  X 


CONTENTS. 


Page. 


I.  What  is  a  combination  under  the  first  section  of  the  anti-trust 

act? .  1 

II.  Combinations  effected  by  purchase  are  equally  within  the  in¬ 
hibitions  of  the  law .  15 

III.  The  shareholders  were  not  the  same  in  1879,  in  1882,  and  in 

1899 .  22 

IY.  What  is  a  monoply  under  the  second  section  of  the  anti-trust 

act? . .  32 

V.  Evidence  that  the  defendant  companies  obtained  rebates  and 
discriminatory  rates  of  transportation,  and  engaged  in  unfair 
and  oppressive  methods  of  competition,  is  material  in  this 

case . 42 

VI.  Railroad  freight  rates . .  59 

VII.  Growth  of  competitors  of  Standard  Oil  Company .  59 

VIII.  Tank  cars .  .  61 

IX.  Competing  refineries  purchase  and  dismantled .  61 

Appendix  A,  list  of  States  having  anti-trust  constitutional  and  statu¬ 
tory  provisions,  and  references  to  sections  thereof .  65 

Appendix  B,  schedule  showing  changes  in  the  personnel  of  the  owners 


of  the  stock  in  the  Standard  organization  at  various  periods. . . .  Facing  68 
ppendix  C,  partial  list  of  concerns  combined  with  or  acquired  by 
Standard  Oil  interests  since  the  organization  of  the  Standard  Oil 
Company  in  1870,  showing  the  property  acquired,  manner  of  com¬ 
bination  or  acquisition,  names  of  former  owners  who  thereupon 
received  stock  in  the  Standard  organization,  and  whether  the  prop¬ 
erty  was  thereafter  operated  or  dismantled,  etc .  Facing  68 

(i) 

72719—11 - 1 


Sr^'OOQ 

*  t>00 


Jn  the  Supreme  dfonrt  of  the  itnitett  states. 

October  Term,  1910. 


Standard  Oil  Company  of  New  Jersey,  ' 
et  al.,  appellants, 

v. 


No.  398. 


United  States  of  America,  appellee. 

/  J 


REPLY  brief  for  the  united  states. 


I. 

What  is  a  combination  under  the  first  section  of  the 

Anti-Trust  Act? 

We  wish  first  to  discuss  the  meaning  of  section 
1  of  the  act,  especially  in  reply  to  subdivision  3  of 
defendants7  brief. 

Counsel  say  that  a  combination  under  this  sec¬ 
tion  is  a  “  contractual  combination,77  executory  in 
nature,  whereby  each  separate  person  or  corporation 
contracts  to  restrain  the  management  of  his  own 
business  (p.  60).  Let  us  consider  this  proposition. 
There  is  nothing  in  the  act  which  limits  its  scope  to 
contractual  combinations.  In  fact,  if  this  was  the 
true  interpretation,  the  word  “ combination77  would 

(i) 


2 


be  surplusage,  for  a  “  contract”  in  restraint  of  trade 
would  cover  the  whole  field.  But  it  is  evident  that 
such  is  not  the  interpretation  intended,  or  which  has 
been  applied  by  this  court.  It  is  true  that  various 
contracts,  combinations,  and  conspiracies  were  at  the 
time  of  the  passage  of  the  act  well  known  to  the 
courts  and  to  the  Congress,  and,  as  counsel  say,  some 
of  these  were  the  combinations  involved  in  the  Sugar 
and  Whisky  Trust  cases.  (Brief,  p.  54.)  They,  how 
ever,  omit  the  most  conspicuous  one,  the  Standard 
Oil  Trust,  after  which  the  Sugar  and  Whisky  Trust 
combinations  were  patterned.  Congress  knew  of 
these  combinations,  and  intended  by  the  Sherman 
Act  to  declare  them  illegal  in  the  domain  of  inter¬ 
state  commerce.  (See  discussions  of  Congress,  vol. 
1  of  our  brief,  p.  289  et  seq.)  Counsel  concede  this 
class  of  combinations  to  be  in  violation  of  law.  The 
only  possible  difference  between  those  trusts  and  the 
combination  at  bar  is  that  a  corporation  now  holds 
the  stocks  rather  than  the  trustees.  Is  there  any 
saving  virtue  in  a  corporation  over  a  set  of  individu¬ 
als?  In  the  Northern  Securities  case  this  court  held 
not.  Now,  Congress  did  not  intend  the  inhibition  of 
the  act  to  run  merely  against  the  trust  form  of  com¬ 
bination,  but  provided  by  section  1  that — 

Every  contract,  combination  in  the  form  of 
trust  or  otherwise,  or  conspiracy  in  restraint 
of  trade  *  *  *  is  hereby  declared  to  be 
illegal. 

It  means  any  contract  or  combination  in  the  form 
of  a  trust  or  otherwise,  thereby  making  the  act 


3 


flexible  to  cover  any  form  or  device  employed  to 
hold  together  corporations  or  naturally  competing 
business  establishments  so  as  to  eliminate  compe¬ 
tition.  This  is  clear,  not  only  from  the  reading  of 
the  act,  but  from  the  numerous  decisions  of  this 
court  and  of  the  State  courts  construing  like  stat¬ 
utes  and  defining  combinations. 

Supplementing  the  cases  reviewed  in  volume  1 
of  our  brief,  we  have  a  number  of  cases  decided  in 
the  State  courts  at  about  the  time  of  the  former 
argument  of  this  case  before  this  court,  in  which  those 
courts  have  held  this  identical  Standard  Oil  combina- 
nation  of  1899,  and  other  similar  ones,  in  violation  of 
State  statutes. 

The  laws  of  the  various  States  under  which  these 
decisions  have  been  rendered  are  in  effect,  as  applied 
to  intrastate  commerce,  substantially  the  same  as 
the  Sherman  Act  applied  to  interstate  commerce. 
We  attach  hereto  as  Appendix  A  a  list  of  these 
statutes  and  sections  of  constitutions  in  36  States, 
nearly  all  of  them  passed  since  the  enactment  of 
the  Sherman  Act.  They  evince  a  great  public 
policy  of  this  nation,  which  is  a  material  considera¬ 
tion  in  this  court.  ( Union  Pacific  R.  R.  Co.  v.  Mason 
City  Co.,  199  U.  S.,  167.) 

These  statutes  have  been  enforced  against  the 
Standard  Oil  combination  as  to  intrastate  commerce 
in  several  States,  and  various  constituent  corpora¬ 
tions  of  this  combination  excluded  from  those  States. 
Like  decisions  have  been  rendered  against  other 
similar  combinations.  How  many  other  cases  are 


4 


now  pending  we  can  not  say,  but  it  is  evident  that 
the  States  are  enforcing  these  statutes,  and  unless 
the  Federal  Government  enforces  the  Sherman  Act 
we  shall  have  the  anomalous  condition  of  these  great 
combinations  being  held  invalid  as  to  intrastate 
commerce  and  excluded  from  the  States,  while  as  to  ‘ 
interstate  commerce  they  may  continue  to  do  busi¬ 
ness  under  the  shield  of  Federal  authority. 

State  of  Missouri  v.  Standard  Oil  Co.,  218 
Mo.,  p.  1. 

State  of  Texas  v.  Waters-Pierce  Oil  Co.,  106 
S.  W.,  925;  same  case ,  177  U.  S.,  28. 

State  of  Minnesota  v.  Standard  Oil  Co.,  126 
N.  W.,  527. 

State  of  Tennessee  v.  Standard  Oil  Co.,  117 
Tenn.,  618. 

State  of  Tennessee  v.  Standard  Oil  Co.,  120 
Tenn.,  86;  s.  c.  217  U.  S.,  413. 

State  of  Kansas  v.  International  Harvester 

Co.,  79  Kans.,  371;  99  Pac.,  603. 

State  of  Kansas  v.  International  Harvester 

Co.,  81  Kans.,  610;  106  Pac.,  1053. 

State  of  Kentucky  v.  Int.  Harvester  Co.,  124 
Ky.,  543;  99  S.  W.,  637. 

State  of  Missouri  v.  Armour  Packing  Co., 
173  Mo.,  356;  73  S.  W.,  645. 

Hammond  Packing  Co.  v.  State  of  Arkansas, 

81  Ark.,  519;  affirmed,  212  U.  S.,  322. 

State  of  Minnesota  v.  Creamery  Package 
Mfg.  Co.,  126  N.  W.,  126. 

In  fact  the  question  of  the  validity  of  the  Standard 
Oil  Trust  of  1882,  or  the  present  combination  of 
1899,  and  like  combinations,  has  never  come  before 
the  courts  of  the  States  without  their  being  declared 


5 


C,  4 

invalid  under  antitrust  statutes  similar  to  the  Fed¬ 
eral  law. 

State  v.  Standard  Oil  Co.,  49  Ohio  St.,  137. 

State  v.  Buckeye  Pipe  Line  Co.,  Solar  Refin¬ 
ing  Co.,  Ohio  Oil  Co.,  and  Standard  Oil  Co.  of 
Ohio,  61  Oh.  St.  520. 

People  v.  North  River  Sugar  Refining  Co.,  54 
Hun.,  354. 

Distilling  &  Cattle  Feeding  Co.  v.  People, 

156  Ill.,  448. 

State  v.  Nebraska  Distilling  Co.,  29  Neb., 
700. 

Nat’l  Lead  Co.  v.  Grote  Paint  Store  Co.,  80 
Mo.  App.,  247. 

In  the  case  of  Missouri  v.  Standard  Oil  Co.  (218 
Mo.,  1)  the  court  had  under  consideration  the  iden¬ 
tical  organization  involved  in  this  case.  The  court 
there,  speaking  of  the  case  of  National  Lead  Co.  v. 
Grote  Paint  Co.  (80  Mo.  App.,  247),  said  (218  Mo., 
452,  453) : 

That  the  predecessor  of  the  plaintiff,  the 
National  Lead  Trust,  was  an  unlawful  com¬ 
bination,  both  in  purpose  and  fact,  is  suffi¬ 
ciently  established  by  the  nature  of  the  agree¬ 
ment  under  which  it  is  created  and  the 
methods  and  practices  resorted  to  in  the  fur¬ 
therance  of  that  agreement.  *  *  *  While 
the  conclusion  of  the  illegal  purpose  of  the 
trust  agreement  is  irresistible  upon  a  consid¬ 
eration  of  its  several  provisions  and  the  man¬ 
ner  in  which  they  were  carried  out,  it  will  ap¬ 
pear  from  an  examination  of  the  cases  that  this 
result  has  been  declared  by  every  court  called 
upon  to  review  that  agreement  or  others  sub- 


6 


stantially  like  it.  State  v.  Standard  Oil  Co ., 
49  Ohio  St.,  137,  30  N.  E.,  279,  15  L.  R.  A., 
156  Ill.,  448,  41  N.  E.,  188,  47  Am.  St.  Rep., 
200;  Distilling ,  etc.,  Co.  v.  People,  156  Ill., 
448;  Bishop  v.  A.  Preserving  Co.,  157  Ill.,  100, 
cit.  311,  41  N.  E.,  765,  48  Am.  St.  Rep.,  317; 
People  v.  N.  R.  C.  Co.,  121  N.  Y.,  582, 24  N.  E., 
834,  9  L.  R.  A.,  33,  18  Am.  St.  Rep.,  843; 
Unckles  v.  Colgate,  148  N.  Y.,  529,  43  N.  E., 
59;  U.  S.  v.  Freight  Assn.,  166  U.  S.,  290,  . 
17  Sup.  Ct.,  540,  41  L.  ed.,  1007;  U.  S.  v. 
Joint  Traffic  Assn.,  171  U.  S.,  505,  19  Sup. 
Ct.,  25,  43  L.  ed.,  259. 

In  the  case  of  Merchants  Ice  &  Cold  Storage  Co.  v. 
Rohrman  (128  S.  W.,  599),  suit  was  brought  by  the 
Merchants  Co.  against  Rohrman  to  enjoin  him  from 
violating  a  contract  in  which  he  obligated  himself 
for  a  period  of  10  years  not  to  engage  in  manu¬ 
facturing  and  selling  ice  in  Jefferson  County,  Ky. 
It  appears  that  the  Merchants  Company  had  acquired 
a  large  percentage  of  the  concerns  engaged  in  manu¬ 
facturing  and  selling  ice  in  Louisville  and  vicinity. 
The  court  said  (p.  601) : 

From  these  facts,  our  conclusion  is  that 
the  contract  was  not  only  unenforceable  be¬ 
cause  in  violation  of  the  statute  before  its 
amendment  by  the  act  of  1906  (Laws,  1906,  c. 
117),  held  to  amend  in  Commonwealth  v. 
International  Harvester  Company  of  America 
(115  S.  W.,  703),  but  it  was  void  as  an  unrea¬ 
sonable  restraint  of  trade  independent  of  the 
statute.  *  *  * 

Where,  therefore,  one  corporation  is  created 
for  the  purpose  of  taking  over  a  number  of 


7 


other  corporations,  issuing  stock,  or  even  pay¬ 
ing  for  the  property,  with  a  view  of  establishing 
a  monopoly,  trust,  or  combination,  the  form 
of  the  transaction  will  be  disregarded  and  the 
intent  of  the  parties  will  be  looked  to. 

In  case  of  State  v.  International  Harvester  Co.  (79 
Kans.,  371),  information  was  filed  against  the  Inter¬ 
national  Harvester  Company  of  America,  charging  it 
with  a  violation  of  the  antitrust  statute  of  Kansas, 
which  in  substance  provided: 

That  all  arrangements,  contracts,  agree¬ 
ments,  trusts,  or  combinations  between  per¬ 
sons  or  corporations  made  with  a  view  or 
which  tend  to  prevent  full  and  free  competi¬ 
tion  in  the  importation,  transportation,  or  sale 
of  articles  imported  into  this  State,  or  in  the 
product,  manufacture,  or  sale  of  articles  of  do¬ 
mestic  growth  or  product  of  domestic  raw 
material,  *  *  *  and  all  arrangements, 
contracts,  agreements,  trusts,  or  combinations 
between  persons  or  corporations  designed  or 
which  tend  to  advance,  reduce,  or  control  the 
price  or  the  cost  to  the  producer  or  to  the  con¬ 
sumer  of  any  such  products  or  articles, 
*  *  *  are  hereby  declared  to  be  against 
public  policy,  unlawful,  and  void. 

It  appeared  in  the  case  that  the  International  Har¬ 
vester  Co.  of  America  was  the  selling  agent  of  the 
International  Harvester  Company  of  New  Jersey ;  that 
the  International  Harvester  Company  of  America  had 
purchased  the  plants  and  business  of  seven  previously 
competing  concerns,  and  was  a  large  corporation  con¬ 
trolling  a  large  part  of  the  sale  of  harvester  machinery 


8 


in  Kansas.  The  corporation  was  convicted,  and  in 
sustaining  the  conviction  the  Supreme  Court  of  the 
State  said  (p.  384) : 

In  our  view  the  information,  taken  as  a 
whole,  clearly  indicates  that  the  offenses  in¬ 
tended  to  be  prosecuted  thereunder  were  sales 
of  machinery  made  by  a  corporation  belonging 
to  a  combination  which  is  unlawful  under  the 
statute  of  this  State — in  other  words,  sales 
made  in  violation  of  section  2435,  Gen.  St. 
1901,  which  in  part  reads: 

“  That  the  *  *  *  sale  *  *  *  of  any 

*  *  *  commodities  in  this  State  by  any  cor¬ 
poration  who  has  entered  into  any  such  ar¬ 
rangements,  contracts,  agreements,  trusts,  or 
combinations  in  any  other  State  or  Territory 
as  described  in  sections  1  or  2  of  this  act, 

*  *  *  shall  constitute  a  violation  of  this 

act.”  The  numerous  sales  specifically  and 
separately  alleged  indicate  the  intent  of  the 
prosecutor.  To  make  these  sales  appear  un¬ 
lawful  it  was  not  only  proper,  but  necessary,  to 
show  by  allegations  somewhere  in  the  informa¬ 
tion  that  they  were  made  by  a  corporation  then 
acting  under  some  one  of  the  many  arrange¬ 
ments,  contracts,  agreements,  trusts,  and  com¬ 
binations  made  unlawful  by  the  statute.  It 
was  deemed  necessary  when  the  statute  was 
drawn  to  use  language  broad  enough  to  cover 
every  conceivable  combination  through  which 
the  interdicted  acts  could  by  any  reasonable 
possibility  be  perpetrated.  *  *  * 

It  seems  clear  from  these  introductory  allega¬ 
tions  that  the  defendant  at  the  time  the  alleged 
sales  were  made  had  entered  into  one  or  more 


9 


of  the  prohibited  organizations.  This  is  suffi¬ 
cient;  whether  it  belonged  to  one  of  such 
organizations  or  all  of  them  is  immaterial. 

Subsequently  a  suit  was  brought  to  oust  the  Inter¬ 
national  Harvester  Company  of  America  from  the 
State  under  the  same  statute,  and  on  substantially 
the  same  state  of  facts.  The  court  said  (81  Kans., 
612): 

(60)  It  is  apparent  from  the  evidence  that 
the  International  Harvester  Company  of  New 
Jersey  acquired  by  purchase  six  or  more  of 
the  brands  of  harvesting  machinery  (including 
the  brand  formerly  manufactured  and  sold  by 
the  defendant),  which,  prior  to  1903,  had  been 
sold  in  Kansas  in  active  competition  with  each 
other;  and  that  the  effect  of  its  so  acquiring 
the  same  has  been  to  fix  and  control  the  whole¬ 
sale  prices  of  such  brands  of  machinery  in  the 
State  of  Kansas.  It  is  further  apparent  from 
the  evidence  that  the  purpose  of  this  merger 
was  to  reduce  operating  expenses  and  de¬ 
crease  competition. 

(61)  The  practical  effect  of  this  merger  and 
the  connection  of  the  defendant  with  the 
International  Harvester  Company  of  New 
Jersey  has  been  to  regulate  and  control  the 
retail  and  wholesale  prices  of  harvesting  ma¬ 
chines  in  the  State  of  Kansas,  and  to  secure 
to  the  defendant  approximately  85  per  cent 
of  this  business  within  this  State. 

In  this  case  because  the  expulsion  of  the  company 
from  the  State  of  Kansas  would  practically  deprive 
the  State  of  ability  to  buy  harvesters  except  from 
the  Harvester  Company,  the  Attorney  General  con- 


10 


sented  to  a  decree  limiting  the  remedy  to  that  of 
setting  aside  certain  unlawful  agreements  as  to 
agents,  making  unfair  discrimination  in  the  sale  of 
goods,  etc. 

The  foregoing  case  illustrates  the  necessity  for 
action  by  the  Federal  Government.  Here  is  a  cor¬ 
poration  held  to  be  a  trust  and  combination  in  viola¬ 
tion  of  statutes  substantially  like  the  federal  anti¬ 
trust  act,  and  yet  the  State  is  compelled  to  permit 
violation  of  its  laws  because  of  the  power  of  such  a 
company  to  take  from  the  farmers  of  the  State  any 
opportunity  to  buy  except  at  prices  fixed  by  the 
trust. 

In  the  case  of  International  Harvester  Co.  v.  Com¬ 
monwealth  (124  Ky.,  543,  99  S.  W.,  637),  an  indict¬ 
ment  charged  the  International  Harvester  Company 
of  America,  the  selling  agent,  with  violation  of  the 
antitrust  act  of  the  State  of  Kentucky.  It  appears 
in  this  case,  as  it  did  in  the  Kansas  case,  that  the 
defendant  was  the  selling  agent  of  the  International 
Harvester  Company.  Conviction  was  sustained.  The 
court  said  (p.  552) : 

From  the  evidence  it  is  certain  that  there 
was  a  combination,  or  agreement,  to  fix  the 
price  of  these  machines  referred  to,  entered 
into  by  the  owners  thereof,  and  possibly 
others.  It  is  pretty  certain  that  that  agree¬ 
ment  was  made  outside  of  this  State,  and  if 
they  had  never  come  into  this  State  to  execute 
the  agreement,  or  any  part  of  it,  they  would 
not  be  liable  to  punishment  here;  but  the 
proof  shows  that  they  were  executing  the 


11 


agreement  in  this  State,  and  possibly  the 
agent  of  the  appellant,  in  this  State,  entered 
into  the  combination  or  agreement,  after  they 
entered  this  State,  to  carry  out  the  agreement, 
and  under  the  authority  referred  to  such  agent 
occupied  the  same  position  as  the  original 
parties  to  the  unlawful  agreement. 

In  the  case  of  State  v.  Creamery  Package  Manu¬ 
facturing  Co.  (Minn.)  (126  N.  W.,  126)  suit  was 
brought  by  the  State  to  oust  the  defendant  from 
doing  business  in  the  State  on  the  ground  that  it 
was  a  combination  and  a  trust  in  violation  of  the 
laws  of  the  State.  From  the  findings  of  fact  it 
appears  that  prior  to  February,  1898,  F.  B.  Fargo 
&  Co.  of  Minnesota,  F.  B.  Fargo  &  Co.  of  Wisconsin, 
Cornish,  Curtis  &  Greene  Manufacturing  Co.  of 
Wisconsin,  Cornish,  Curtis  &  Greene  of  Minnesota, 
and  A.  H.  Barber  &  Co.  of  Illinois  were  severally 
engaged  in  Minnesota  in  selling  creamery  supplies 
such  as  churns,  butter-making  machines,  etc.,  and 
that  there  had  been  competition  between  them; 
that  about  February,  1898,  the  defendant  was 
organized,  and  exchanged  its  stock  for  the  various 
properties  of  the  defendant  corporations,  under  an 
agreement  that  the  purchasing  company  might  con¬ 
tinue  to  use  the  names  of  the  selling  companies  in  the 
various  communities  for  the  purpose  of  continuing 
the  business.  The  testimony  also  showed  that  about 
the  spring  of  1898  the  defendant  company  also  bought 
the  J.  A.  Cushman  Co.  of  Iowa,  the  E.  W.  Ward  Co. 
of  Minnesota,  the  Freemont  Butter  Tub  Co.  of  Illi- 


12 


nois,  the  Stoddard  Manufacturing  Co.  of  Vermont, 
and  the  Sturgis,  Cornish  &  Burn  Co.  of  Iowa.  The 
court  found  that  this  consolidation  or  combination 
was  made  for  the  purpose  of  eliminating  competition; 
that  after  the  agreement  of  purchase  was  made  the 
defendant  used  the  names  of  certain  of  the  corpora¬ 
tions  in  the  various  localities  where  they  previously 
had  been  doing  business.  Traveling  agents  were 
sent  out,  each  pretending  to  be  the  agent  of  one  or 
the  other  of  said  concerns;  but  they  did  not  com¬ 
pete  with  each  other,  and  the  defendant  Creamery 
Package  Manufacturing  Co.  divided  up  the  territory 
among  the  various  concerns  thus  doing  business. 
This  is  exactly  the  way  the  territory  is  divided  up 
in  the  Standard  Oil  case.  The  court  said  (p.  129) : 

We  believe  the  February  agreement  to 
have  been  unlawful  under  the  common  law. 
(State  v.  Duluth  Bd.  of  Trade ,  107  Minn.,  506, 
121  N.  W.,  395,  23  L.  R.  A.  (N.  S.),  1260.) 
But  we  do  not  find  it  necessary  to  rest  our 
decision  upon  that  ground,  nor  to  discuss  the 
various  statutes  created  since  the  making  of  the 
agreement  in  1898.  The  State  claims  appel¬ 
lant  is  a  party  to  and  now  maintains  a  com¬ 
bination  in  restraint  of  trade,  in  violation  of 
section  5168,  Revised  Laws,  1905,  which  for¬ 
bids  entering  into  any  pool,  trust,  agreement, 
combination,  or  understanding  whatsoever 
with  others  in  restraint  of  trade,  or  to  limit, 
fix,  control,  maintain,  or  regulate  the  price  of 
any  article  of  trade,  manufacture,  or  use,  or 
to  prevent  or  limit  competition  in  the  pur- 


13 


chase  and  sale  of  such  articles.  As  already 
said,  appellant  is  subject  to  that  statute,  and 
we  have  left  to  consider  whether  appellant  is 
violating  it,  and,  if  so,  is  the  statute  a  valid 
police  regulation  by  the  State  as  applied  to 
appellant,  whose  transactions  consist  princi¬ 
pally  in  the  sale  of  patented  articles?  *  *  * 
The  reason  for  authorizing  the  creation  of  cor¬ 
porations  and  their  legal  status  when  formed 
are  familiar  to  all.  A  characteristic  quality 
of  a  corporation,  which  is  essential  to  the 
utility  of  the  association,  is  that  for  the  trans¬ 
action  of  its  legitimate  business  it  be  a  legal 
entity,  having  its  own  life  and  individuality 
distinct  from  its  members;  but  when  the  cor¬ 
porate  form  is  assumed  by  individuals  for  the 
purpose  of  evading  the  law,  and  as  a  mere 
cloak  under  which  unlawful  practices  may  be 
concealed,  the  courts  will  disregard  the  ap¬ 
pearance  and  consider  the  substance,  and 
thus  determine  the  propriety  of  the  transaction 
under  scrutiny.  ( People  v.  North  River  Sugar 
Refining  Co .,  121  N.  Y.,  582,  24  N.  E.,  834, 
9  L.  R.  A.,  33,  18  Am.  St.  Rep.,  843;  Unckles 
v.  Colgate ,  148  N.  Y.,  529,  43  N.  E.,  59;  Gal¬ 
lagher  v.  Germania  Brewing  Co .,  53  Minn.,  214, 
54  N.  W.,  1115;  State  v.  Standard  Oil  Co.,  49 
Ohio  St.,  137,  30  N.  E.,  279,  15  L.  R.  A.,  145, 
34  Am.  St.  Rep.  541;  Harding  v.  Am.  Glucose 
Co.,  182  III,  551,  55  N.  E.,  577,  64  L.  R.  A., 
738,  74  Am.  St.  Rep.,  189;  Northern  Securities 
Co.  v.  United  States,  193  U.  S.,  197,  24  Sup.  Ct., 
436,  48  L.  Ed.,  679;  Cook  on  Corporations 
(6th  ed.),  pp.  663,  664.) 


14 


The  February  agreement  contemplated  no 

absolute  purchase  and  sale  of  the  various 

properties.  Upon  the  contrary,  the  plan  was 

to  place  all  the  properties  in  the  possession  of 

the  appellant,  to  be  managed  jointly  for  the 

benefit  of  the  original  owners,  each  of  whose 

interest  was  to  be  evidenced  bv  shares  of  the 

«/ 

capital  stock  of  appellant  issued  to  each  in 
proportion  to  his  original  holding.  If  in 
place  of  the  corporation  an  individual  had 
been  selected,  who,  when  the  legal  title  was 
vested  in  him,  issued  certificates  of  trust,  the 
violation  of  law  would  be  apparent.  This 
agreement  went  further.  It  provided  for 
directors,  representing  those  who  made  trans¬ 
fers  of  property,  and  for  a  minimum  division 
of  profits,  thus  continuing  the  control  of  each 
interest  instead  of  leaving  such  control  with 
the  majority  of  the  stock,  where  it  is  ordi¬ 
narily  found;  and,  notwithstanding  the  pro¬ 
vision  for  dissolution  of  the  corporations  so 
transferring  their  respective  properties,  the 
right  to  use  the  name  of  each  for  the  purpose 
of  simulating  competition  was  attempted  to 
be  conferred  upon  the  appellant.  The  record 
does  not  disclose  the  terms  upon  which  the 
properties  of  the  concerns  not  parties  to  the 
agreement  were  subsequently  taken  over,  but 
without  regard  to  those  transactions  it  must 
be  held  that  the  learned  trial  judge  was  en¬ 
tirely  correct  in  describing  the  transfer  made 
pursuant  to  the  February  agreement  as  a 
nominal  purchase. 


15 


II. 

Combinations  effected  by  purchase  are  equally  within 

the  inhibitions  of  the  law. 

(1)  Defendants’  counsel  contend  that  combina¬ 
tions  effected  by  purchase  of  property,  either  stock  or 
plants,  are  not  within  the  inhibition  of  the  first  sec¬ 
tion  of  the  act.  This  is  stated  in  various  ways  on 
pages  58,  59,  63,  and  at  other  places  through  their 
brief. 

It  is  said  that  “  purchases  and  acquisitions  of 
property  are  not  contracts,  combinations,  or  con¬ 
spiracies  in  restraint  of  trade;”  that  a  person  has  a 
right  to  buy  a  competing  business  and  that  the  inci¬ 
dental  restraint  which  goes  with  this  purchase  is 
not  and  can  not  be  prohibited  by  Congress  (pp.  58 
and  63). 

The  transfer  of  the  stocks  of  these  companies  in  1899 
to  the  Standard  Oil  Company  of  New  Jersey  had  no 
greater  legal  sanctity  than  the  transfer  to  the  trustees 
in  1882;  nor  was  it  different  than  the  transfer  of  the 
stocks  of  the  Northern  Pacific  and  Great  Northern 
railways  to  the  Northern  Securities  Co.  in  1901,  two 
years  after  the  organization  of  the  present  corporate 
Standard  Oil  combination.  It  is  the  usual  course  of 
reasoning  urged  in  all  of  these  cases  that  because  a 
person  has  a  right  to  purchase  property  he  may  there¬ 
fore  purchase  a  competitor;  and  because  he  may  pur¬ 
chase  one  competitor,  he  may  purchase  all  of  his  com¬ 
petitors;  and  that  what  an  individual  may  do,  a  cor- 
'  poration  may  do.  These  were  the  identical  argu- 

72719—11 - 2 


16 


merits  pressed  with  great  ability  by  counsel  in  the 
Northern  Securities  case,  and  in  the  subsequent  case 
of  Harriman  v.  Northern  Securities  Co.  (197  U.  S., 
291),  but  this  court  held  to  the  contrary.  The  posi¬ 
tion  is  also  contrary  to  the  almost  universal  trend  of 
American  decisions,  both  Federal  and  State.  (See 
Shawnee  Compress  Co.  v.  Anderson ,  209  U.  S.,  433, 
and  cases  cited  under  the  first  head  of  this  brief.)  The 
exercise  of  an  individual  right  disconnected  from  all 
the  other  circumstances  may  be  legal,  but  when  taken 
together  with  the  other  circumstances  may  accom¬ 
plish  the  prohibited  thing. 

% 

(2)  But  the  counsel  say,  these  corporations  were 
merely  potential  competitors  in  1899;  that  “  potential 
competition  is  a  term  borrowed  from  economics  and 
means  that  the  field  is  open  to  newcomers.”  We 
take  it  the  word  was  used  by  the  Circuit  Court  in  its 
ordinary  meaning,  to  wit: 

Possible,  as  opposed  to  actual;  capable  of 
being  or  becoming;  capable  of  coming  into 
full  being  or  manifestation.  (Century  Dic¬ 
tionary.) 

These  corporations  were  separate  and  distinct 
entities,  each  owning  its  separate  plant  and  capable 
of  competing.  The  only  reason  they  did  not  com¬ 
pete  was  because  of  the  illegal  combination  which 
had  been  declared  void  and  which  had  been  dis¬ 
solved.  The  companies  were  thereafter  simply  held 
together  by  secret  understandings  of  the  majority  in 
ownership  of  the  then  two  or  three  thousand  stock¬ 
holders.  They  were  potentially  competing  compa- 


17 


nies,  the  same  as  the  Great  Northern  and  the  North¬ 
ern  Pacific  railroads  were.  There  was  no  evidence 
that  these  railroads  were  actually  competing;  in  fact, 
at  the  time  of  the  organization  of  the  Securities 
Company  they  were  controlled  by  certain  common 
owners,  to  wit,  Hill  and  his  associates,  and  Morgan 
and  his  associates;  but,  as  the  court  said,  they  were 
naturally  competing  companies. 

It  is  also  said  that  industrial  corporations  owe 
no  duty  to  compete.  No  one  is  under  any  legal 
obligation  to  compete.  The  law  says  that  parties 
shall  not,  by  contract,  or  combination  in  the  form 
of  trust  or  otherwise,  remove  the  incentive  to  com¬ 
pete,  leaving  it  to  the  natural  laws  of  trade  to  cre¬ 
ate  and  foster  competition.  At  least  this  is  the 
rule  as  to  railroads,  and  the  court  has  said  that 
the  same  principle  applies  to  other  corporations. 
(. Northern  Securities  Co.  v.  U.  S .;  U.  S.  v.  Trans-Mis¬ 
souri  Freight  Ass’n.)  In  the  Northern  Securities  case 
it  was  said,  in  effect,  that  the  transfer  of  all  the 
stocks  to  a  holding  company  took  away  the  incentive 
to  compete  and  gave  the  power  to  restrain  trade. 
The  law  looks  to  the  substance  of  the  thing 
accomplished  rather  than  to  the  form. 

(3)  What  was  the  actual  situation  in  1879?  The 
Standard  Oil  Company  had  not  purchased  these  cor¬ 
porations  nor  the  properties  thereof.  There  was 
simply  a  tentative  combination  through  certain 
trustees.  A  large  number  of  concerns,  admitted  to 
have  been  competing,  were  combined  by  stock 


18 


ownership,  in  the  following  manner:  There  were  a 
large  number  of  competing  concerns  engaged  in 
business  in  the  Eastern  States,  each  concern  owned 
by  a  separate  set  of  stockholders.  These  stock¬ 
holders  turned  their  stocks  over,  by  the  trust  of 
1879,  to  Vilas,  Keith,  and  Chester,  trustees,  for  the 
purpose  of  dividing  the  same  in  certain  proportions 
among  all  the  stockholders.  Thereafter  these  stocks, 
together  with  the  stocks  of  certain  other  corpora¬ 
tions,  were  placed  in  the  trust  of  1882.  The  latter 
trust  was  dissolved  because  illegal,  and  another  com¬ 
bination  formed  in  1899. 

* 

In  what  respect  does  this  differ  from  the  Northern 
Securities  case?  For  instance,  let  us  suppose  that 
Hill  and  his  associates,  10  in  number,  owned  the 
stock  of  the  Great  Northern  Railway;  Morgan  and 
his  associates,  15  in  number,  owned  the  stock  of 
the  Northern  Pacific  Railway;  and  Harriman  and 
his  associates,  20  in  number,  owned  the  stock  of 
the  Union  Pacific  Railroad;  that  these  45  gen¬ 
tlemen  got  together  and  put  their  stocks  in  the 
hands  of  Vilas,  Keith,  and  Chester,  trustees,  to 
divide  the  same  among  the  45  so  that  each  stock¬ 
holder  (formerly  holding  stock  in  one  railway 
only)  should  become  a  holder  of  stock  in  all  three 
railways,  and  holding  the  same  ratio  thereof  as  all 
the  other  stockholders.  Then  suppose  in  1882  they 
all  turned  their  stock  over  to  trustees,  to  hold  and 
manage  the  same  under  a  trust  like  the  Standard  Oil 
Trust,  and  that  this  was  carried  on  until  1892,  when 
it  was  dissolved  because  the  Supreme  Court  of  Minne- 


19 


sota  held  it  to  be  in  violation  of  the  common  law 
respecting  monopolies;  and  that  the  stockholders 
then  put  their  certificates  in  the  hands  of  a  holding 
corporation  in  exchange  for  its  stock.  Would  that 
have  been  legal?  Would  they  have  any  right  to 
combine  because  of  the  prior  community  of  ownership  ? 

If  the  antitrust  act  can  be  thus  evaded,  it  is  of  no 
value  whatever,  for  it  would  be  an  easy  matter  to  get 
the  stockholders  of  all  the  competing  corporations  in 
any  branch  of  industry  in  America  to  turn  their 
stock  over  to  trustees  for  the  purpose  of  dividing  it 
among  them  in  order  to  make  them  common  owners 
as  a  preliminary  step  to  the  combination.  In  fact, 
the  transfer  to  a  corporation  and  receipt  of  that  cor¬ 
poration’s  stock  is  in  effect  nothing  more  than  this. 

Suppose,  after  the  Northern  Securities  Company 
was  dissolved  and  the  stock  of  both  the  Northern 
Pacific  and  Great  Northern  had  been  divided  among 
all  the  shareholders  in  proportion  to  the  number  of 
Securities  Company  certificates  held  by  each;  then, 
if  the  defendant’s  theory  is  correct,  becauses  the 
stockholders  were  common  owners  in  both  properties, 
they  could  do  what  they  please  with  their  stock,  and 
could  thereupon  organize  a  new  securities  company, 
which  would  be  lawful  because  they  had  become  com¬ 
mon  owners  through  the  dissolution  of  the  former 
unlawful  organization. 

As  a  matter  of  fact,  as  the  court  stated  in  the 
opinion  below  (Vol.  A,  p.  580),  for  some  time  before 
the  transfer  of  the  stock  to  the  Northern  Securities 
Company,  a  group  of  stockholders  controlled  a 


20 


majority  of  the  stock  of  the  Northern  Pacific  and 
Great  Northern  railways — not  one  group  the  Great 
Northern,  and  another  group  the  Northern  Pacific, 
as  claimed  by  the  defendants  in  the  case  at  bar.  It 
appeared  in  the  Northern  Securities  case  that  about 
1895  Mr.  Hill  made  a  deal  to  obtain  fifty  per  cent  of 
the  stock  of  the  reorganized  Northern  Pacific  Com¬ 
pany  for  the  Great  Northern  stockholders,  but  as 
this  stock  was  to  be  transferred  to  the  Great  Northern 
Railway  Company,  or  held  in  trust  for  the  stock¬ 
holders,  this  court  held  the  contract  illegal.  ( Pear¬ 
sall  v.  Great  Northern  Ry.  Co.,  161  U.  S.,  646.)  Sub¬ 
sequently,  about  February,  1897,  Hill  and  his  asso¬ 
ciates  bought  $25,834,100  par  value  of  the  common 
stock  of  the  reorganized  Northern  Pacific  Company. 
(Record  in  Northern  Securities  case,  testimony  of 
J.  P.  Morgan,  vol.  1,  pp.  316,  317.)  And  later  they 
bought  about  $10,000,000  more.  (Testimony  of 
Charles  Steele,  vol.  1,  p.  286.)  Mr.  Hill  stated  the 
names  of  the  persons  who  were  associated  with  him 
in  the  Great  Northern  and  Northern  Pacific  rail¬ 
ways.  They  were  John  S.  Kennedy,  D.  Willis 
James,  Samuel  Thorne,  J.  W.  Sterling,  Oliver  Payne, 
Jacob  Schiff,  Henry  W.  Cannon,  Lord  Strathcona, 
Lord  Mount  Stephen;  and  he  said  there  may  have 
been  others.  (P.  49.) 

So  it  appears  that  Mr.  Hill  and  his  associates  and 
Mr.  Morgan  and  his  associates,  all  owning  stock  in 
both  roads,  controlled  those  two  properties  and  had 
for  several  years  before  the  reorganization  of  the 
Northern  Pacific.  (See  record  in  Northern  Securities 


21 


case,  vol.  1,  testimony  of  James  J.  Hill,  pp.  46,  48, 
49,  50,  54,  55,  61,  62,  86,  87 ;  Charles  Steele,  pp.  284, 
286;  J.  P.  Morgan,  pp.  316,  317,  338,  343.) 

In  fact  Mr.  Morgan  made  the  same  claim  as  to 
community  of  ownership  which  is  made  in  the  case  at 
bar.  He  said,  speaking  of  this  common  ownership 
in  the  two  railroads : 

“  The  community  of  interest  is  that  principle 
that  a  certain  number  of  men  who  own  prop¬ 
erty  can  do  what  they  like  with  it.”  (Record, 
Northern  Securities  case,  vol.  1,  p.  343.) 

(4)  It  is  said  that  the  decree  should  not  run  against 
certain  of  these  corporations  because  they  were 
created  by  the  trustees  during  the  years  of  the  in¬ 
valid  trust.  Suppose  they  were.  They  were  sepa¬ 
rate  corporate  entities,  engaged  in  business,  and  by 

joining  in  the  conspiracy  their  action  partook  of  the 

\ 

same  illegality  as  though  they  were  original  parties 
to  it.  (Government  brief,  vol.  1,  p.  394,  and  authori¬ 
ties  cited.) 

The  defendants  take  inconsistent  positions.  When 
they  contend  on  behalf  of  the  Standard  Oil  Company 
of  New  Jersey  that  it  should  have  all  the  constitu¬ 
tional  rights  of  individuals  respecting  the  purchase 
of  property,  they  necessarily  concede  that  the  cor¬ 
poration  is  an  entity  separate  and  distinct  from  its 
stockholders.  But  in  their  proposition  that  the 
decree  should  not  run  against  those  of  its  subsidiary 
corporations  which  were  organized  by  Standard 
interests,  they  assert  that  the  corporation  merely 
represents  its  shareholders  and  therefore  should  not 


22 


be  considered  apart  from  those  shareholders  or 
organizers,  and  should  be  exempt  from  the  penalties 
attaching  to  individuals  who  join  a  conspiracy  after 
it  is  formed. 

III. 

The  shareholders  were  not  the  same  in  1879,  in  1882, 

and  in  1899. 

(1)  It  is  said  that  the  same  men  owned  all  these 
companies  in  1879,  in  1882,  and  in  1899  when  the 
last  combination  was  formed.  This  statement  is 
not  correct.  We  attach  hereto  as  Appendix  B  an 
analysis,  so  far  as  it  can  be  made  from  the  testimony, 
showing  in  parallel  columns  the  shareholders  at  the 
different  periods  and  the  changes  in  the  personnel 
thereof. 

The  column  headed  “1870”  shows  the  names, 
9  in  number,  of  the  persons  interested  in  the 
Standard  Oil  Company  of  Ohio  at  that  time. 

The  column  of  1879  shows  the  stockholders  of 
the  various  separate  corporations  who  placed  their 
stock  in  the  Vilas,  Keith,  and  Chester  trust  of  1879, 
37  in  number.  Only  5  of  the  stockholders  of  the 
original  Standard  Oil  Company  of  Ohio  went  into 
this  trust.  There  were  32  persons,  controlling  out¬ 
side  and  competing  companies,  who  in  the  meantime 
had  united  with  the  Standard  and  were  added  to 
the  list. 

In  1882,  which  was  two  years  and  nine  months 
after  the  agreement  of  1879,  the  number  of  share¬ 
holders  going  into  the  Standard  Oil  Trust  had  in¬ 
creased  to  42,  of  which  seven  were  new  names. 


23 


In  1892,  the  court  will  remember,  only  a  few  per¬ 
sons,  17  in  number,  liquidated  their  trust  certificates. 

Between  1897  and  1900  the  balance  of  the  certifi¬ 
cate  holders,  several  thousand  in  number,  liquidated 
and  took  their  stock  in  the  20  subcompanies,  and 
exchanged  the  same  for  stock  of  the  Standard  Oil 
Company  of  New  Jersey,  as  fully  explained  in  volume  1 
of  our  brief. 

As  hereinafter  shown,  we  have  never  been  able  to 
get  a  complete  list  of  the  shareholders  in  these  sub¬ 
companies  during  the  years  of  the  Standard  Oil 
Trust  and  the  liquidation  period,  because  the  defend¬ 
ants  refused  to  produce  it  in  court.  However,  we 
got  a  partial  list  showing  112  persons,  who  turned 
their  stock  into  the  Standard  Oil  Company  of  New 
Jersey.  There  were  in  fact  several  thousand  more. 
Of  the  112,  only  20  persons  were  shareholders  who 
had  turned  their  stock  into  the  Standard  Oil  Trust  in 
1882.  The  balance  of  the  112,  and  the  several  thou¬ 
sand  other  stockholders  who  were  not  named,  were 
new  shareholders. 

(2)  The  Government  showed  the  combination  of  the 
separate  corporate  entities ,  engaged  in  the  same  busi¬ 
ness ,  in  1899.  The  burden  thereupon  rested  upon  the 
defendants  to  show ,  if  true ,  that  the  subcompanies  were 
n  1899  owned  by  the  same  individuals  who  owned 
them  in  1879  and  1882.  We  do  not  believe  this  was 
material ,  but  the  defendants  absolutely  failed  to  sustain 
any  such  proposition.  The  Government  showed  to 
the  contrary,  and  would  have  shown  the  complete 
stock  list  had  the  defendants  not  refused  to  produce 


24 


the  transfer  books  of  the  trustees  and  the  liquidating 
trustees. 

The  Government  tried  to  prove  who  the  various 
shareholders  in  the  subcompanies  were  during  the 
existence  of  the  trust,  from  1882  to  1899,  but  could 
not  procure  the  books.  It  appeared  in  the  case  that 
the  trustees  kept  a  regular  set  of  stock  books,  so  that 
they  could  have  told  who  the  shareholders  of  the  trust 
were  at  any  period.  They  also  had  a  complete  list 
of  the  shareholders  who  turned  their  stock  into  the 
Standard  Oil  Company  of  New  Jersey  in  exchange 
for  its  stock  in  1899  and  1900.  These  stock  books 
were  in  the  office  and  carefully  preserved  until  1900 ; 
and,  although  the  Government  tried  in  every  way 
possible,  by  subpoenas  duces  tecum,  by  the  examina¬ 
tion  of  witnesses  who  should  have  known,  and  by 
demands  to  produce  these  books,  it  never  obtained 
them. 

The  suboepnas  duces  tecum  served  on  the  officials 
of  the  Standard  Oil  Company  at  the  beginning  of 
the  taking  of  testimony  required  them  to  produce 
these  books.  (See  Subpoenas,  vol.  20,  pp.  483,  485, 
486.)  One  of  these  witnesses  was  C.  M.  Pratt,  who 
for  years  has  been  one  of  the  most  active  men  during 
the  existence  of  the  trust  as  well  as  the  present 
corporate  combination,  who  is  a  large  stockholder 
in  the  Standard  Oil  Company  of  New  Jersey, 
and  controls  over  59,000  shares;  who  signed  the 
original  trust  agreement;  was  one  of  the  liquidating 
trustees  for  a  short  time;  was  the  secretary  of  the 
Standard  Oil  Company  of  New  Jersey  when  the  last 


25 


combination  was  formed  in  1899  and  1900,  and  who 
is  still  the  secretary.  We  invite  the  court’s  attention 
to  his  testimony,  contained  on  pages  27  to  31  and  83 
to  90,  volume  1  of  the  record.  His  want  of  knowl¬ 
edge  concerning  the  liquidation  and  the  control  of 
these  companies  during  the  liquidation  period  is 
astonishing. 

We  also  especially  invite  the  court’s  attention  to 
the  testimony,  given  about  the  same  time,  of  W.  H. 
Tilford,  now  deceased,  who  had  been  connected  with 
the  Standard  Oil  organization  since  1878  or  1879,  who 
was  a  liquidating  trustee,  the  attorney-in-fact  for  the 
liquidating  trustees,  and  at  the  time  of  testifying  was 
treasurer  of  the  New  Jersey  company.  For  days  the 
Government  undertook  to  get  from  Mr.  Tilford  the 
facts  and  the  records  showing  how  this  liquidation 
took  place.  The  Government  undertook  to  find  out 
where  the  transfer  books  of  the  liquidating  trustees 
were,  but  has  never  been  able  to  find  them  or  procure 
their  production.  (Record,  vol.  1,  pp.  95-184,  espe¬ 
cially  pp.  100,  101,  102,  124.)  Only  after  Mr.  Tilford 
was  confronted  with  certain  books  that  Mr.  Fay,  the  as¬ 
sistant  comptroller,  was  compelled  to  produce,  did  he 
admit  the  scheme  of  the  liquidation  and  control  during 
this  period,  but  he  never  produced  the  transfer  books. 
(Record,  vol.  2,  pp.  622,  632.) 

The  Government  also  tried  to  get  these  transfer 
books  from  John  Bensinger,  who  was  the  transfer 
agent  for  the  liquidating  trustees,  in  whose  possession 
they  last  appeared  when  he  left  the  company  about 
the  beginning  of  1900,  but  he  had  no  knowledge  of 


26 


what  had  become  of  them.  He  turned  over  all  the 
papers  to  C.  T.  White,  who  succeeded  him.  (Record, 
vol.  1,  pp.  185-189.) 

White  was  called  as  a  witness  and  testified  in  sub¬ 
stance  that  he  succeeded  Bensinger  about  the 
beginning  of  1900,  and  that  all  the  books  were  turned 
over  to  him;  that  a  safe,  containing  a  large  number 
of  books,  was  turned  over  to  him,  but  he  did  not 
examine  it;  that  the  safe  was  removed  from  the 
office  within  a  month  or  two  after  he  came  there; 
and  that  although  he  knew  Bensinger  was  the  transfer 
agent  whom  he  was  to  succeed,  the  latter  did  not  tell 
him  what  papers  were  in  the  safe.  (Record,  vol.  1, 
pp.  406,  410.)  This  testimony  was  taken  in  the  fall 
of  1907. 

Over  a  year  later,  in  November,  1908,  Mr.  John 
D.  Rockefeller  and  Mr.  Archbold  were  both  examined 
as  to  the  liquidation  of  this  trust,  and  asked  to 
produce  these  books,  but  they  never  produced  them 
or  explained  their  loss.  Neither  did  they  make  any 
claim  that  they  had  searched  for  them,  although 
they  were  proven  to  have  been  in  the  office  in  a  safe 
as  late  as  1900,  and  were  necessarily  important- 
books.  Mr.  Rockefeller  testified  (vol.  16,  p.  3184) : 

Q.  Will  you  make  a  search  or  cause  a 
search  to  be  made  and  see  if  you  can  find 
the  original  trust  certificate  books  and  the 
stock  ledger  and  stock  journal,  or  certificate 
ledger  and  certificate  journal,  showing  the 
original  issue  of  trust  certificates  and  the 
transfers  thereof  down  to  the  time  the  trust 
was  dissolved  ? 


27 


Mr.  Milburn.  I  object  to  that  question 
as  relating  to  a  matter  not  in  any  way  referred 
to  or  covered  by  the  direct  examination. 

Q.  Please  answer. 

Mr.  Milburn.  Now,  what  is  it  that  Mr. 
Rockefeller  is  asked  by  the  question  to  do? 

Mr.  Kellogg.  Please  read  it. 

(The  reporter  read  the  question.) 

Mr.  Milburn.  Mr.  Rockefeller,  if  I  may 
suggest,  you  certainly  will  direct  that  to  be 
done. 

A.  I  will  do  anything  that  I  can;  but,  as 
I  have  already  stated,  I  have  not  been  the 
custodian  of  such  books  and  papers  for  over 
30  years  and  know  nothing  about  them. 

When  Mr.  Rockefeller  said  he  had  not  been  the 
custodian  of  the  papers  for  over  30  years  it  was 
a  mere  technical  evasion.  He  was  president  of  the 
trustees  throughout  the  life  of  the  trust,  a  liqui¬ 
dating  trustee  as  late  as  1899,  and  confessedly 
acted  for  a  large  number  of  certificate  holders  in 
1899  and  1900,  receiving  their  stock  and  turning 
it  in  to  the  Standard  Oil  Company  of  New  Jersey, 
of  which  he  has  at  all  times  since  been  the  presi¬ 
dent.  (Defendant’s  Exhibit  388;  stipulation,  vol. 
17,  p.  3665.) 

Again  he  testified  (vol.  16,  p.  3186): 

Q.  At  the  time  of  the  dissolution  in  March, 
1892,  how  many  trust  certificates  were  there 
outstanding,  in  numbers? 

Mr.  Milburn.  Can’t  you  state  the  amount 
to  him? 


28 


Q.  No;  how  many  individual  certificate 
holders  ? 

A.  Well,  there  were  a  few  thousand.  I 
could  not  tell  you  how  many  thousand  there 
were. 

Q.  Your  books  would  show  that,  would 
they  not? 

A.  I  think  they  would. 

Q.  I  would  like  those  books  produced  show¬ 
ing  that  fact,  the  same  books  that  I  asked  for 
before. 

Mr.  Archbold,  who  is  now  and  has  been  since  1899, 
vice-president,  and  a  director  of  the  Standard  Oil 
Company  of  New  Jersey,  who  was  a  trustee  of  the 
Standard  Oil  Trust  and  a  liquidating  trustee,  who 
signed  the  trust  agreements  of  1879  and  1882,  and 
who  has  always  been  in  active  management  of 
Standard  Oil  affairs,  testified  as  follows  (vol.  17, 
p.  3382) : 

Q.  At  the  time  of  the  dissolution  of  the 
trust  there  were  a  large  number  of  holders  of 
trust  certificates,  were  there  not? 

A.  There  were. 

Q.  About  how  many? 

A.  I  haven't  it  in  mind. 

Q.  Did  the  trustees  keep  stock-certificate 
books  showing  the  issue  and  transfer  of  the 
stock  from  time  to  time? 

A.  They  did. 

Mr.  Rosenthal.  You  mean  from  1882  to 
1892? 

Mr.  Kellogg.  Yes;  from  1882  to  1892. 

Witness.  They  did. 


Mr.  Rosenthal.  Transfer  of  the  certificates, 
you  mean  ? 

Mr.  Kellogg.  Yes. 

Q.  Those  books  were  the  ordinary  certifi¬ 
cate  books  and  trust-certificate  journals  or 
ledgers,  weren’t  they? 

A.  I  suppose  they  were. 

Q.  And  they  showed  from  time  to  time  the 
owners  of  those  various  trust  certificates  ? 

A.  Undoubtedly. 

Q.  Have  you  those  books? 

A.  I  have  not. 

Q.  Do  you  know  where  they  are? 

A.  I  do  not. 

Q.  Have  you  ever  looked  for  them? 

A.  I  have  not. 

Q.  Did  you  know  a  year  ago  that  the  Gov¬ 
ernment  was  trying  to  get  hold  of  these 
books? 

A.  I  don’t  remember  particularly  about  it. 

Q.  Do  you  know  that  various  witnesses 
were  asked  about  those  books  and  that  they 
could  not  find  them? 

A.  I  think  I  have  heard  the  matter  referred 
to. 

Q.  Have  you  made  inquiries  to  see  if  you 
could  find  them? 

A.  I  have  not. 

Q.  Will  you  do  so? 

A.  I  will,  with  pleasure.  I  know  of  no  rea¬ 
son  on  earth  why  you  should  not  have  them. 

Q.  Well,  I  don’t  either;  but  we  have  not 
been  able  to  get  them  for  the  last  year. 

A.  You  have  not  tried  to,  have  you? 

Q.  Oh,  yes. 


Mr.  Rosenthal.  You  have  not  tried  by  any 
proper  method. 

Mr.  Kellogg.  We  have  asked  every  person 
who  has  been  on  the  stand  who  is  supposed 
to  know  anything  about  it. 

A  week  or  so  later  when  Mr.  Archbold  was  again 
on  the  stand  and  was  asked  to  produce  the  books, 
he  did  not  even  claim  that  he  had  made  a  search  for 
them.  The  conversation  which  took  place  between 
the  witness,  his  counsel,  and  counsel  for  the  Govern¬ 
ment,  is  as  follows  (vol.  17,  p.  3652) : 

Mr.  Kellogg.  No.  6:  Produce  the  trust 
certificate  books  and  trust  certificate  journal 
and  ledger,  showing  the  issuance  and  transfer 
of  all  certificates  issued  by  the  trustees. 

Mr.  Milburn.  Well,  the  same  answer  to 
that,  Mr.  Kellogg. 

Mr.  Kellogg.  There  hasn’t  been  any  an¬ 
swer  to  that,  Mr.  Milburn. 

Mr.  Milburn.  If  it  is  found  it  will  be  pro¬ 
duced. 

Mr.  Kellogg.  The  question  is,  Has  it  been 
found  ? 

Mr.  Milburn.  It  would  certainly  be  re¬ 
ported  to  me  if  it  had  been.  Mr.  Archbold 
answered  that;  that  he  would  direct  a  search 
to  be  made,  and  that  he  hadn’t  the  remotest 
idea  why  it  should  not  be  produced,  so  far  as 
anything  that  it  contained. 

Mr.  Milburn  does  not  state  that  a  search  was  made 
and  the  records  could  not  be  found,  and  no  witness 
explains  their  absence. 


31 


It  is  perfectly  evident  from  this  record  that  every 
possible  means  to  cover  up  the  transactions  and  the 
list  of  stockholders  during  this  liquidation  period 
was  resorted  to  by  the  defendants  and  their  counsel. 
However,  a  partial  list  of  the  persons  to  whom  stock 
was  issued  in  the  Standard  Oil  Company  of  New 
Jersey  in  exchange  for  stock  in  the  20  subcompa¬ 
nies  was  furnished.  (Defendant’s  Exhibit  388,  in  3 
sheets,  record,  vol.  19,  p.  894.)  This  list  contains 
the  names  of  112  individuals.  It  is  stipulated,  how¬ 
ever,  that  this  was  not  a  complete  list  of  the  persons 
who  so  exchanged  their  stock,  and  that  a  large  num¬ 
ber  of  the  shares  appearing  in  the  name  of  Mr.  Rocke¬ 
feller  and  Mr.  Flagler  were  not  owned  by  them,  but 
belonged  to  various  holders  of  trust  certificates,  who, 
to  avoid  inconvenience,  had  placed  their  certificates 
in  the  hands  of  these  gentlemen.  (Stipulation,  vol. 
17,  p.  3665.) 

(3)  It  therefore  appears  that  the  shareholders  were 
not  always  the  same,  nor  anywhere  near  the  same,  and 
that  the  Government  exhausted  every  reasonable 
means  to  procure  the  complete  list.  It  is  incon¬ 
ceivable  that  some  one  connected  with  the  Standard 
Oil  Company  could  not  have  explained  their  loss, 
but  no  explanation  was  made.  The  record  in  this 
case  is  full  of  just  such  evasions,  and  their  claim 
that  there  were  the  same  shareholders  during  all 
these  years  not  only  has  no  evidence  to  sustain 
it,  but  is  disproved  by  the  facts  above  set  forth. 
The  fact  is  that  during  these  years  the  presiding 
genius  who  successively  organized  these  illegal 

72719—11 - 3 


32 


trusts  for  the  purpose  of  evading  the  law  was  Mr. 
John  D.  Rockefeller,  and  that  the  only  persons  who 
have  been  with  him  and  acting  with  him  during  all 
these  years  were  John  D.  Archbold,  Henry  H.  Rogers, 
Wm.  Rockefeller,  Oliver  H.  Payne,  Henry  M.  Flag¬ 
ler,  and  C.  M.  Pratt.  These  men  never  owned  a 
majority  of  the  stock  in  any  of  the  trusts  or  combi¬ 
nations. 

IV. 

What  is  monopoly  under  the  second  section  of  the 

antitrust  act? 

\ 

(1)  It  is  argued  by  counsel  for  appellants  that  the 
inhibitions  of  this  section  run  against  the  unlawful 
means  used  to  acquire  the  monopoly;  that  acquired 
monopoly  is  not  declared  illegal,  but  only  the  means 
by  which  it  has  been  acquired;  that  monopoly  at 
common  law  meant  excluding  one  from  a  lawful 
employment  by  unlawful  means;  that  the  purchase 
of  all  the  corporations  engaged  in  a  business  is  the 
exercise  of  a  lawful  right  and  therefore  can  not  be  an 
unlawful  act  of  monopoly.  One  counsel  (Watson, 
original  brief,  p.  264;  revised  brief,  pp.  157,  159, 
187)  goes  so  far  as  to  say  that  the  means  of  exclu¬ 
sion  must  be  those  which  are  declared  unlawful  by 
Federal  statute;  that  is,  the  acts  in  and  of  themselves 
must  be  specifically  declared  unlawful.  Here  we 
have,  then,  the  substance  of  the  various  claims. 
Let  us  consider  them. 

(2)  Originally  monopoly  meant  a  grant  by  sovereign 
power  of  the  exclusive  right  to  carry  on  any  employ- 


33 


ment.  The  only  act  of  exclusion  was  the  grant 
itself.  If  the  grant  was  void  then  there  was  no 
monopoly.  These  monopolies  were  common  in  all 
monarchical  countries.  They  were  unlawful  because, 
as  said  bv  Lord  Coke, 

All  trades,  as  well  mechanical  as  others, 
which  prevent  idleness  (the  bane  of  the  Com¬ 
monwealth)  and  exercise  men  and  youth  in 
labour,  for  the  maintenance  of  themselves  and 
their  families  *  *  *  are  profitable  to  the 
Commonwealth;  and  therefore  *  *  * 

The  sole  trade  of  any  mechanical  artifice, 
or  any  other  monopoly  is  not  only  a  damage 
and  prejudice  to  those  who  exercise  the  same 
trade,  but  also  to  all  other  subjects. 

The  result  of  monoply  he  pointed  out  was  (i.  e.) : 

It  tends  to  the  impoverishment  of  divers 
artificers  and  others  who  before,  by  the  labor 
of  their  hands  in  their  art  or  trade,  had  main¬ 
tained  themselves  and  their  families,  who  now 
will  of  necessity  be  constrained  to  live  in 
idleness  and  beggary  *  *  *  (11  Coke 

R.,  84b.) 

Such  monopolies  were  “  against  the  common  law 
and  the  benefit  and  liberty  of  the  subject.”  (Slaugh¬ 
terhouse  cases,  16  Wall.,  103.) 

(3)  Admitting  the  limited  meaning  of  the  word 
under  the  early  English  decisions,  it  came  to  have  a 
broader  meaning  under  the  common  law  in  later 
days  and  especially  in  the  United  States.  There 
being,  of  course,  no  such  thing  in  this  country  as  an 
absolute  monopoly  by  grant  of  Congress  or  of  the 


34 


legislatures  (other  than  patent  rights  and  copyrights 
limited  in  duration),  the  legislation  of  Congress  was 
not  directed  against  monopoly  granted  by  law.  We 
must,  therefore,  seek  other  authority  for  the  meaning 
of  the  word  monopoly.  And,  in  order  to  arrive  at 
what  Congress  intended  by  the  act  of  1890,  it  is 
important  to  understand  the  history  of  the  times  and 
the  general  understanding  of  monopoly  as  defined 
by  the  courts  and  by  political  economists. 

In  all  of  the  trust  cases — by  which  we  mean  cases 
where  trusts  like  the  Standard  Oil  Trust  of  1882 
came  before  the  court— combinations  were  held  to 
be  illegal  because  they  tended  to  create  monopolies. 
( State  v.  Standard  Oil  Co .,  49  0.  St.,  137;  People  v. 
North  River  Sugar  Refining  Co .,  54  Hun,  354;  State 
v.  Nebraska  Distilling  Co.,  29  Nebr.,  700;  Distilling 
<Sc  Cattle  Feeding  Co.  v.  People,  156  Ill.,  448;  National 
Lead  Co.  v.  Grote  Paint  Store  Co.,  80  Mo.  App.,  247.) 

In  the  North  River  Sugar  Refining  Co.  case  the 
court  said  (p.  377) : 

Any  combination  the  tendency  of  which  is 
to  prevent  competition  in  its  broad  and  general 
sense  and  to  control  and  thus  at  will  enhance 
*  prices  to  the  detriment  of  the  public  is  a  legal 
monopoly. 

In  the  case  of  Alger  v.  Thacher  (19  Pick.,  51)  the 
Supreme  Court  of  Massachusetts  had  under  considera¬ 
tion  a  bond  conditioned  that  the  obligor  should  not 
carry  on  the  business  of  founding  iron.  The  court 
said  that  this  was  void  because  it  tended  to  monopoly. 


35 


They  expose  the  public  to  all  the  evils  of 
monopoly.  And  this  especially  is  applicable 
to  wealthy  companies  and  large  corporations, 
who  have  the  means,  unless  restrained  by  law, 
to  exclude  rivalry,  monopolize  business,  and 
engross  the  market.  (P.  54.) 

In  People  v.  Chicago  Gas  Trust  (130  Ill.,  268), 
where  one  corporation  bought  the  stock  of  another 
gas  company,  the  court  said  (pp.  293,  295) : 

Whatever  tends  to  create  a  monopoly  is 
unlawful  as  being  contrary  to  public  policy. 
*  *  *  If  contracts  and  grants  whose  ten¬ 
dency  is  to  create  monopolies  are  void  at 
common  law,  then  where  a  corporation  is 
organized  under  a  general  statute,  a  provision 
in  the  declaration  of  its  corporate  purposes 
the  necessary  effect  of  which  is  the  creation 
of  a  monopoly,  will  also  be  void. 

In  Salt  Co.  v.  Guthrie  (35  Ohio  St.,  666),  where 
certain  salt  manufacturers  agreed  between  them¬ 
selves  to  regulate  the  price  of  salt  and  sell  at  a  price 
fixed  by  a  committee,  the  court  said  (p.  672) : 

The  clear  tendency  of  such  an  agreement 
is  to  establish  a  monopoly  and  to  destroy 
competition  in  trade,  and  for  that  reason, 
on  grounds  of  public  policy,  courts  will  not 
aid  in  its  enforcement. 

In  Chapin  v.  Brown  (83  Iowa,  156),  where  all  the 
grocery  men  in  town,  in  order  to  avoid  a  trade  in 
butter  which  was  burdensome,  agreed  not  to  buy 
except  for  use  in  their  own  families,  so  as  to  throw 
the  business  to  one  person,  it  was  held  that  the 
agreement  tended  to  create  a  monopoly. 


36  < 


In  Richardson  v.  Buhl  (77  Mich.,  632),  the  Supreme 
Court  of  Michigan  held  that  a  combination  formed 
by  organizing  a  corporation  and  purchasing  the 
large  percentage  of  the  match  manufacturing  con¬ 
cerns  was  illegal  at  common  law  because  it  tended 
to  monopoly.  The  court  said  (p.  658) : 

Monopoly  in  trade  or  in  any  kind  of  busi¬ 
ness  in  this  country  is  odious  to  our  form 
of  government.  *  *  *  All  combinations 
among  persons  or  corporations  for  the  pur¬ 
pose  of  raising  or  controlling  the  prices  of 
merchandise,  or  any  of  the  necessaries  of 
life,  are  monopolies  and  intolerable,  and  ought 
to  receive  the  condemnation  of  all  courts. 

In  Craft  v.  McConoughy  (79  Ill.,  346),  four  separate 
grain  dealers  in  Rochelle  entered  into  articles  of 
agreement  for  one  year,  each  agreeing  to  carry  on 
their  separate  business  “as  though  there  was  no 
partnership  in  appearance,  keep  their  own  accounts, 
pay  their  own  expenses,  ship  their  own  grain,  and 
furnish  their  own  funds  to  do  business,”  the  common 
profits,  however,  to  be  divided  in  shares.  The 
court  held  that  this  was  an  attempt  “to  control 
and  monopolize  the  entire  grain  trade  of  the  town 
and  surrounding  country.”  The  court  said  (p.  350) : 

The  laws  of  trade,  in  connection  with  the 
rigor  of  competition,  was  all  the  guaranty  the 
public  required,  but  the  secret  combination 
created  by  the  contract  destroyed  all  competi¬ 
tion  and  created  a  monopoly  against  which  the 
public  interest  had  no  protection. 


37 


In  the  case  of  Central  Railroad  Co.  v.  Collins  (40 
Ga.,  582)  the  Supreme  Court  held  that  the  Cen¬ 
tral  of  Georgia  could  not  purchase  a  large  amount  of 
the  stock  (less  than  a  majority)  in  a  competing 
road,  because  it  would  tend  to  give  it  a  monopoly, 
and  was  therefore  against  public  policy  (628  to  631 
of  the  opinion).  The  court  said  (p.  630): 

A  colossal  enterprise,  assured  of  handsome 
dividends  by  the  possession  of  a  monopoly, 
may  well  rest  upon  its  position,  knowing  that 
however  the  country  may  suffer  from  its  exac¬ 
tions,  its  own  profits  are  secure.  It  is  the 
rivalry  of  opposing  interests,  the  struggle  for 
success,  nay,  even  for  life,  with  dangerous 
opposition,  that  gives  life,  enterprise,  and  suc¬ 
cess  to  railroads  as  to  other  human  under¬ 
taking. 

See  other  decisions  in  volume  1  of  our  brief. 

These  cases  were  decided  before  the  Sherman  Act 
was  passed,  and  defined  monopoly  at  common  law 
as  it  was  understood  and  existed  in  this  country. 
They  embrace  trusts  like  the  Standard  Oil  Trust; 
agreements  fixing  prices,  dividing  territory,  or  limit¬ 
ing  production,  thereby  tending  to  enhance  or  con¬ 
trol  the  price  of  products;  general  agreements  restrain¬ 
ing  individuals  from  engaging  in  any  employment 
except  as  incident  to  the  sale  of  property;  purchases 
by  corporations  of  all  or  a  large  proportion  of  com¬ 
peting  manufacturing  or  mechanical  plants;  combina¬ 
tions  of  separate  businesses  in  the  form  of  partnership 
but  really  for  the  purpose  of  controlling  the  trade; 
and  various  other  forms  of  acquiring  monopoly. 


38 


There  was  no  unlawful  exclusion  of  any  one  else 
from  doing  business  in  these  cases.  They  show  that 
the  term  “ monopoly”  as  applied  in  American  juris¬ 
prudence  meant  monopoly  acquired  by  mere  indi¬ 
vidual  acts,  as  distinguished  from  grant  of  govern¬ 
ment,  although  the  individual  act  in  and  of  itself 
was  not  illegal;  the  concentration  of  business  in  the 
hands  of  one  combination,  corporation,  or  person,  so 
as  to  give  control  of  the  product  or  prices;  as  said  by 
Mr.  Justice  McKenna,  in  the  Cotton  Oil  case,  “all 
suppression  of  competition,  by  unification  of  interest 
or  management.” 

The  foregoing  case  of  Craft  v.  McConoughy  well 
illustrates  the  argument  we  make.  The  pretended 
copartnership  formed  between  the  dealers  of  the 
town  of  Rochelle,  while  carrying  on  the  business 
separately,  enabled  them  to  control  the  prices  to  the 
detriment  of  the  surrounding  country.  It  was 
therefore  a  monopolizing  or  an  attempt  to  monopo¬ 
lize  a  part  of  the  commerce  of  the  State;  and  the 
monopolization  would  have  been  just  as  effective  had 
these  separate  business  enterprises  been  stock  cor¬ 
porations  and  the  stock  placed  in  the  hands  of  a 
holding  company.  A  similar  illustration  was  the 
case  of  Smiley  v.  Kansas  (196  U.  S.,  447,  affirming 
65  Kan.,  240),  in  which  an  attempt  to  control  the 
grain  trade  of  a  particular  station  was  held  illegal 
under  a  state  statute.  The  Standard  combination 
is  an  attempt  to  control  and  monopolize  a  vast 
commerce  of  the  entire  country,  as  these  people 


39 


undertook  to  control  and  monopolize  a  local  com¬ 
merce. 

The  term  “monopoly,”  therefore,  as  used  in  the  Sher¬ 
man  Act  was  intended  to  cover  such  monopolies  or 
attempts  to  monopolize  as  were  known  to  exist  in 
this  country;  those  which  were  defined  as  illegal  at 
common  law  by  the  States,  when  applied  to  intrastate 
commerce,  and  those  which  were  known  to  the  Con¬ 
gress  when  the  act  was  passed.  The  monopoly  most 
commonly  known  in  this  country,  and  which  the 
debates  in  Congress  show  were  intended  to  be  pro¬ 
hibited  by  the  act,  were  those  acquired  by  combina¬ 
tion  (by  purchase  or  otherwise)  of  competing  con¬ 
cerns.  The  purchase  of  a  competitor,  as  a  separate 
transaction  standing  alone,  was  the  exercise  of  a  law¬ 
ful  privilege,  not  in  and  of  itself  unlawful  at  common 
law  nor  prohibited  by  statute,  yet  in  the  Northern 
Securities  case  the  purchase  of  stock  in  a  railway  was 
held  to  be  illegal  when  done  in  pursuance  of  a  scheme 
of  monopoly. 

(4)  It  is  not  necessary  in  this  case,  and  we  doubt 
whether  in  any  case  it  is  possible,  to  make  a  compre¬ 
hensive  definition  of  monopoly  which  will  cover  every 
case  that  may  arise.  It  is  sufficient  if  the  case  at  bar 
clearly  comes  within  the  provisions  of  this  act.  We 
believe  that  the  defendants  have  acquired  a  monopoly 
by  means  of  a  combination  of  the  principal  manufac¬ 
turing  concerns  through  a  holding  company;  that 
they  have,  by  reason  of  the  very  size  of  the  combina¬ 
tion,  been  able  to  maintain  this  monopoly  through 
unfair  methods  of  competition,  discriminatory  freight 


40 


rates,  and  other  means  set  forth  in  the  proofs.  If  the 
act  did  not  mean  this  kind  of  monopoly,  we  doubt  if 
there  is  such  a  thing  in  this  country.  The  men  who 
framed  the  Constitution  of  this  country  were  familiar 
with  the  history  of  monopolies  growing  out  of  acts  of 
the  Government.  They  guarded  the  people  against 
these  by  constitutional  provisions,  but  they  left  open 
the  widest  field  for  the  exercise  of  individual  enter¬ 
prise,  and  it  was  the  abuse  of  these  personal  privi¬ 
leges,  made  easy  by  state  laws  permitting  unlimited 
incorporation,  which  gave  rise  to  the  evils  that  con¬ 
vinced  the  people  of  the  necessity  for  the  passage 
of  the  Sherman  antitrust  act.  It  was  not  monopolies 
as  known  to  the  English  common  law,  but  monopolies 
such  as  were  commonly  understood  to  exist  in  this 
country  which  that  act  prohibited. 

We  do  not  therefore  believe  that  the  only  means 
of  securing  a  monopoly  is  by  excluding  persons  by 
unlawful  means  from  engaging  in  business,  much  less 
by  such  means  only  as  are  prohibited  by  Federal 
statute. 

(5)  As  a  natural  conclusion  from  the  foregoing  defi¬ 
nition  of  monopoly  by  appellants’  counsel,  they  claim 
that  the  inhibitions  of  the  second  section  are  against 
the  unlawful  means  used  to  acquire  the  monopoly, 
but  that  acquired  monopoly  is  not  illegal;  therefore 
that  the  court  can  only  restrain  the  means  by  which 
the  monopoly  was  acquired,  leaving  the  monopoly 
to  exist.  We  believe  this  to  be  an  altogether  too  re¬ 
fined  construction  of  the  act.  If  such  be  the  true 
interpretation,  the  result  would  be  that  one  could 


41 


combine  all  the  separate  manufacturers  in  a  given 
branch  of  industry  in  this  country  by  use  of  unlawful 
means  such  as  discriminatory  freight  rates,  but,  if  not 
attacked  by  the  Government  before  it  had  obtained 
complete  control  of  the  business,  its  very  size, 

with  its  ramifications  through  all  the  States,  would 

/ 

make  it  impossible  for  anyone  else  to  compete,  and 
it  could  control  the  price  of  products  in  the  entire 
country  and  would  be  beyond  the  reach  of  the  law.  It 
could,  by  selling  at  a  low  price  where  a  competitor 
was  engaged  in  business  and  by  raising  the  price 
where  there  was  no  attempt  at  competition,  absolutely 
control  the  business  without  itself  suffering  any  loss ; 
and  yet  the  Government  would  be  powerless  to  de¬ 
stroy  the  monopoly  because  the  unlawful  means  had 
been  abandoned.  That  is  substantially  the  position 
of  the  defendants  in  the  case  at  bar.  Counsel  say, 
If  we  have  done  anything  wrong,  enjoin  us  from 
continuing  those  acts,  but  leave  us  the  power  of  our 
monopoly  thus  acquired. 

So  far  as  this  case  is  concerned,  we  believe  the 
court  has  power  under  section  1  to  declare  illegal 
the  combination,  thereby  causing  the  defendants  to 
sever  their  various  corporations.  This  would  destroy 
the  monopoly.  But,  assuming  for  the  purpose  of 
argument  that  there  was  no  such  combination  to  be 
dissolved,  the  act  makes  it  unlawful  for  anyone  to 
monopolize  or  attempt  to  monopolize  interstate  or 
foreign  commerce  and  empowers  the  Federal  courts 
to  prevent  and  restrain  violations  of  the  act.  The 
manufacture,  transportation,  and  sale  of  oil  is  a  part 


42 


of  the  commerce  of  the  country,  and  no  one  can 
monopolize  it  except  in  violation  of  the  act.  The  act 
therefore  makes  unlawful  the  continuance  of  the 
monopoly.  The  very  act  of  continuing  to  do  all  or 
a  dominant  part  of  the  commerce  in  oil  by  this  com¬ 
bination  is  an  act  of  monopolizing,  and  an  injunction 
may  prohibit  the  defendants  from  continuing  to  do 
business  until  they  have  ceased  monopolizing  or 
attempting  to  monopolize  the  commerce  in  oil  by 

terminating  the  combination  of  the  defendant  cor- 

/ 

porations  and  distributing  the  stocks  now  held  in 
unified  control. 

The  discussion  of  this  question  is  probably  aca¬ 
demic  in  this  brief,  because  if  the  defendants  are 
required  to  dissolve  their  combination  that  of  itself 
will  stop  the  monopoly,  and  when  the  defendants 
come  to  comply  with  the  decree  the  court  has  power 
to  decide  whether  the  defendants  have  ceased  the 
combination  and  have  separated  the  business  into  a 
sufficient  number  of  integral  parts  to  prevent  any 
one  of  them  from  being  or  obtaining  a  monopoly. 

V. 

Evidence  that  the  defendant  companies  obtained 
rebates  and  discriminatory  rates  in  the  transpor¬ 
tation  of  their  product  as  against  their  competitors, 
and  engaged  in  unfair  and  oppressive  methods  of 
competition,  thereby  destroying  the  smaller  manu¬ 
facturers  and  dealers  throughout  the  country,  is 
material  in  this  case. 

(1)  We  briefly  considered  this  subject  in  volume 
1  of  our  brief,  page  379.  Since  the  argument, 


43 


however,  a  number  of  cases  have  been  decided  or 
have  come  to  our  attention  directly  bearing  upon 
this  question,  to  which  we  desire  to  call  the  atten¬ 
tion  of  the  court. 

State  of  Missouri  v.  Standard  Oil  Co.,  218 
Mo.,  1. 

State  of  Minnesota  v.  Standard  Oil  Co .,  126 
N.  W.  Rep.,  527. 

Standard  Oil  Company  v.  State  of  Tennessee, 
117  Tenn.,  618. 

Standard  Oil  Co.  v.  State  of  Tennessee ,  120 
Tenn.,  86;  same  case,  217  U.  S.,  413. 

State  of  South  Dakota  v.  Central  Lumber  Co., 
123  N.  W.  Rep.,  504. 

Citizens’  Light,  Heat  &  Power  Co.  v.  Mont¬ 
gomery,  171  Fed.,  553. 

State  of  Nebraska  v.  Drayton,  82  Nebr.,  254; 
117  N.  W.  Rep.,  769. 

People  v.  American  Ice  Co.,  120  N.  Y.  Supp., 
443. 

(2)  We  call  the  attention  of  the  court  to  the  fact 
that  the  statement  of  counsel  in  their  brief  that  the 
testimony  on  this  subject  offered  by  the  Government 
in  the  case  at  bar  was  mostly  incompetent  and  im¬ 
material  is  absolutely  without  foundation.  They  se¬ 
lected  (pp.  172-173,  brief  of  facts)  two  instances  where 
the  Government  offered  some  written  evidence  which 
was  afterwards  not  substantiated.  These  exhibits 
have  not  been  referred  to  by  the  Government  in  any 
brief  or  argument  of  the  case.  It  is  well  known  to 
the  court  that  all  the  testimony  can  not  be  put  in  at 
once,  and  we  frequently  offered  documents  and  after¬ 
wards  substantiated  them  by  competent  testimony. 


44 


We  believe  counsel  have  selected  the  only  two  ex¬ 
hibits  which  were  not  afterwards  proven. 

Counsel,  however,  have  not  hesitated  to  quote  in 
their  briefs,  both  in  this  court  and  in  the  court  below, 
an  exhibit  on  the  subject  of  unfair  competition  which 
was  never  sufficiently  proved.  We  refer  to  the  sup¬ 
posed  letter  of  a  Mrs.  Jones  (Deft.’s  brief,  vol.  2, 
p.  199),  which  was  never  proved  by  any  person  who 
knew  the  author  of  the  letter  or  the  handwriting 
thereof  or  anything  about  its  subject-matter.  (Rec- 
ord,  vol.  13,  p.  1437.)  The  matter  is  unimportant, 
but  is  indicative  of  the  character  of  the  defense. 

As  to  the  prices  in  the  various  communities,  the 
court  will  see  that  we  relied  principally  upon  the  facts 
obtained  from  the  Standard  Oil  Company’s  statistical 
department. 

As  to  price  cutting,  counsel  state  that  we  only 
showed  37  towns  in  which  the  defendants  engaged  in 
local  price  cutting,  while  the  Standard  is  doing  busi¬ 
ness  in  37,000  towns  throughout  the  United  States. 
We  actually  proved  by  witnesses  price  cutting  under 
the  independents  in  110  towns;  and  it  must  be  re¬ 
membered  that  in  large  tracts  of  country  the  Stand¬ 
ard  has  absolutely  eliminated  all  competition,  and  the 
independents  are  now  doing  business  in  but  a  small 
number  of  places.  For  instance,  take  the  States  of 
Colorado,  Wyoming,  Utah,  Idaho,  and  New  Mexico, 
known  as  the  Denver  territory:  practically  every 
independent  has  been  eliminated.  The  proof  shows 
that  the  independents  have  sold  in  these  States  only 
from  two-tenths  of  1  per  cent  to  one  and  one-tenth 


45 


per  cent  of  the  trade  in  illuminating  oil.  Also,  take 
Washington,  Oregon,  Nevada,  Arizona,  and  large 
stretches  of  country  in  the  South :  all  competition  has 
been  eliminated,  and  the  prices  in  this  territory  are 
abnormally  high.  The  Government’s  proof  is  plenary 
and  is  sufficiently  reviewed  in  volume  2  of  the  brief 
filed  on  the  former  hearing. 

(3)  The  opinions  in  some  of  the  cases  above  cited 
are  exceedingly  long,  and  for  the  convenience  of  the 
court  we  have  extracted  the  substance  thereof. 

In  the  Missouri  case  (218  Mo.,  1)  the  Standard  Oil 
Company  of  Indiana  and  the  Waters-Pierce  Com¬ 
pany  were  excluded  from  the  State  because  belong¬ 
ing  to  a  combination  in  restraint  of  trade  in  violation 
of  the  State  law.  The  court,  however,  considered  as 
bearing  upon  the  question  the  unfair  methods  of  com¬ 
petition.  It  was  shown  in  that  case  that  the  State 
had  been  divided  up  between  the  Waters-Pierce  Oil 
Company  and  the  Standard  Oil  Company  of  Indi¬ 
ana;  that  the  Standard  Oil  Company  held  out  the 
Waters-Pierce  and  the  Republic  companies  as  inde¬ 
pendent,  when,  as  a  matter  of  fact,  they  were  con¬ 
trolled  by  it.  It  was  proved  also  that  they  were 
engaged  in  unfair  methods  of  competition  by  cutting 
the  prices  below  a  profit  where  independents  were 
doing  business;  that  they  paid  rebates  to  customers 
of  the  independents,  thereby  accomplishing  the  same 
thing;  that  they  had  obtained  from  railroads  infor¬ 
mation  as  to  independent  shipments,  and  had  used 
such  information  for  the  purpose  of  destroying  the 
business  of  the  independents.  The  court  held  this 


46 


evidence  material.  The  testimony  in  that  case  was 
by  stipulation  of  counsel  read  into  the  record  in  the 
case  at  bar,  and  is  briefly  given  in  volume  2  of  our 
brief. 

In  the  case  of  State  v.  Central  Lumber  Co.  (South 
Dakota)  (123  N.  W.  Rep.,  504),  suit  was  brought  by 
the  State  to  oust  the  defendant  on  the  ground  that 
it  violated  the  statute  prohibiting  intentional  dis¬ 
crimination  in  prices  against  particular  localities 
for  the  purpose  of  destroying  competition,  etc. 
The  court  held  that  the  statute  was  constitutional 
and  that  the  defendant  had  been  guilty  of  its  viola¬ 
tion,  which  tended  to  create  a  monopoly,  and  sus¬ 
tained  a  judgment  ousting  the  corporation  from  the 
State.  The  court  said  (p.  509) : 

Now  he  says  to  a  competitor,  if  such  com¬ 
petitor  be  weaker  than  he:  “Get  out  of  my 
way.  Sell  me  your  business  or  I  will  de¬ 
stroy  it  by  unfair  competition;”  or  in  many 
cases  without  giving  his  victim  a  chance  to 
sell  to  him  the  business  he  has  he  sets  about 
destroying  it,  and  by  a  method  as  certain  as 
the  passing  of  time,  a  method  that  need  bring 
to  him  not  even  an  immediate  financial  loss. 
He  puts  the  price  of  the  commodity  handled 
so  low,  at  the  point  where  his  victim  is  in  bus¬ 
iness,  as  to  make  it  impossible  to  meet  such 
price  except  at  a  loss,  and,  to  offset  what  loss 
he  suffers  at  that  point,  he  raises  prices  at  one 
or  more  other  points.  As  soon  as  this  prac¬ 
tice  became  quite  prevalent,  the  public  real- 
.  ized  that  an  old  evil  was  being  brought  upon 
them  by  a  new  method;  a  method  that  not 


47 


only  tended  as  its  natural  and  necessary  re¬ 
sult  to  place  a  monopoly  into  the  hands  of 
the  strong,  but  did  not,  as  before,  permit  the 
competitor  to  share  in  the  fruits  of  the  wrong — 
an  evil  bringing  loss  to  the  public  and  wrong 
and  injustice  to  the  weak  tradesman.  Again 
human  experience,  recognizing  the  laws  of 
God  and  nature,  controlled  and  guided  by  an 
aroused  public  conscience,  evolved  a  new  law, 
and  placed  it  upon  the  statute  books  of  this 
and  many  other  States,  a  law  aimed  at  mo¬ 
nopolies  obtained  through  unfair  competi¬ 
tion.  The  question  before  this  court,  as  it 
was  before  the  court  in  case  of  State  v. 
Drayton  (Neb.),  (117  N.  W.,  768),  is,  Are 
these  laws  constitutional  as  being  within  the 
scope  of  the  police  powers,  or  is  the  State 
helpless  to  grapple  with  and  destroy  this  new 
evil,  because  in  so  doing  it  will  take  from  the 
wrongdoer  the  full  enjoyment  of  right  to 
life,  liberty,  and  property  ?  We  have  no 
hesitancy  in  saying  that  this  class  of  legis¬ 
lation  comes  directly  within  the  intendment 
of  section  20,  article  17,  of  our  Constitution, 
and  that  there  is  nothing  in  the  third  point 
raised  by  appellant  that  “This  law  can  not 
be  upheld  upon  the  theory  that  its  purpose  and 
effect  is  to  prevent  the  establishment  of  a 
monopoly.” 

We  not  only  believe  it  can  be  upheld  upon 
the  above  theory,  but  also  that  it  comes  under 
the  scope  of  proper  police  regulation  as  recog¬ 
nized  by  the  authorities,  and  this,  not  only 
because  it  is  intended,  and  would  naturally  tend 
to  prevent  a  wrong  to  the  public,  but  because  we 

72719—11 - 4 


48 


believe  it  is  inherent  in  the  powers  of  the  State 
to  protect  one  citizen  against  “  unfair  compe¬ 
tition”  of  another  citizen,  where  such  “  unfair 
competition”  is  used  as  a  means  to  and  with 
the  intent  to  deprive  such  other  of  his  rightful 
enjoyment  of  property  or  the  use  thereof. 
Can  it  be  held  that  this  evil  which  threatens 
the  very  foundations  of  our  economic  system, 
and  through  it  the  very  foundations  of  a  free 
government,  can  not  be  reached,  for  the  reason, 
forsooth,  that  it  interferes  with  the  right  of 
free  contract  on  the  part  of  the  individual 
guilty  of  the  wrongful  practice?  Bear  in 
mind  at  all  times  that  this  law  is  aimed  only 
at  persons  who  resort  to  such  “ unfair” 
methods  with  the  “ intent”  to  destroy  the 
business  of  their  competitors. 

Summarizing  all  we  have  said  herein:  The 
lawmakers  of  this  State,  taking  notice  of  a 
business  practice  known  to  all  men,  and  which 
had  grown  in  rapid  strides  during  past  years, 
until  it  was  threatening  the  welfare  and  liber¬ 
ties  of  a  free  people  by  its  tendency  to  create 
monopolies  in  the  articles  of  commerce,  thus 
leaving  the  consumers  the  helpless  prey  to  the 
avarice  of  the  holders  of  such  monopolies, 
passed  the  law  in  question  to  cure  the  above- 
mentioned  evil ;  the  law  is  sufficient  in  form 
as  a  criminal  statute,  as  it  set  out  clearly  the 
acts  condemned  as  wrongful,  and  forbade  the 
same  by  providing  a  penalty  for  the  doing  of 
such  acts. 

In  the  case  of  Citizens ’  Light,  Heat  &  Power  Co. 
v.  Montgomery  Light  &  Water  Power  Co .  (171  Fed., 


49 


553)  the  court,  Jones,  district  judge,  held  that  an 
injunction  would  lie  to  prevent  a  corporation  from 
interfering  with  the  business  of  the  competitor  by 
procuring  the  cancellation  of  the  competitor’s  orders 
and  the  violation  of  its  contracts.  The  court  said, 
(page  561) : 

Hence,  while  the  law  allows  a  trader,  by 
mere  solicitation,  to  persuade  customers  to 
change  their  business  relations,  without 
actionable  liability  therefor,  though  a  broken 
contract  is  the  result,  it  does  not  permit  such 
a  solicitor  even  in  the  interests  of  competition 
to  go  further,  intervening  actively  between 
the  contracting  parties,  as  a  dominant  agency 
in  producing  a  breach,  by  promise  of  indem¬ 
nity  to  one  of  them  to  induce  the  breach. 
When  the  solicitor  knowingly  and  intentionally 
goes  beyond  mere  solicitation  to  induce 
another  man’s  customer  to  do  business  with 
him,  and  promises  to  hold  that  other  man’s 
customer  harmless  for  the  breach  of  a  con¬ 
tract  with  him,  he  transcends  the  rights  of  the 
law  of  competition,  has  no  “sufficient  justifi¬ 
cation,”  and  thereby  becomes  liable  to  him 
whose  customer  is  taken  over.  Such  con¬ 
duct  is  an  unlawful  interference  with  another 
man’s  rights,  for  which  he  may  maintain  an 
action  and  recover  nominal  damages,  although 
the  contract  be  not  actually  breached  in 
consequence  of  the  solicitation.  While  there 
are  some  authorities  to  the  contrary,  the 
current  of  authority  in  this  country  and  in 

England  is  that — 

“The  violation  of  a  legal  right  committed 
knowingly  is  a  cause  of  action,  and  that  it  is 


50 


a  violation  of  a  legal  right  to  interfere  with 
contractual  relations  recognized  by  law,  if 
there  be  no  sufficient  justification  for  the 
interference.”  ( Quinn  v.  Leatham,  supra,  510; 
Angle  v.  Chicago ,  etc.,  Ry.  Co.,  151  U.  S.,  1; 
14  Sup.  Ct.,  240,  38  L.  Ed.,  55;  Martens  v. 
Reilly,  109  Wis.,  464,  84  N.  W.,  840;  Rice  v. 
Manley,  66  N.  Y.,  82,  23  Am.  Rep.,  30;  Bit- 
terman  v.  L.  &  N.  R.  R.  Co.,  207  U.  S.,  205, 
28  Sup.  Ct.,  91,  52  L.  Ed.,  171;  Beekman  v. 
Marsters,  195  Mass.,  205,  80  N.  E.,  817,  11 
L.  R.  A.  (N.  S.),  201,  122  Am.  St.  Rep.,  232; 
South  Wales  Miners’  Fed.  v.  Glamorgan  Coal 
Co.,  Appeal  Cases,  1905,  p.  239.  See  also  Nims 
on  Unfair  Business  Competition,  pp.  351-371.) 

In  the  case  of  Standard  Oil  Co.  v.  State  (117  Tenn., 
618;  same  case,  100  S.  W.,  705),  and  Standard  Oil 
Co.  v.  State  (120  Tenn.,  86;  same  case,  110  S.  W., 
565;  affirmed  in  the  Supreme  Court  of  the  United 
States,  217  U.  S.,  413),  the  supreme  court  of  Ten¬ 
nessee  affirmed  the  conviction  of  the  officials  and 
agents  of  the  Standard  Oil  Company  for  conspiracy  to 
engage  in  unlawful  competitive  practices,  and  in 
the  latter  case  the  corporation  was  ousted  from  the 
State  under  quo  warranto  proceedings  for  like 
practices.  It  was  there  held  that  for  the  Standard 
Oil  Company  and  its  agents  in  Tennessee  to  enter  into 
a  conspiracy  to  procure  the  countermanding  of  sales  of 
oil  by  independent  oil  companies,  by  giving  the 
merchants  certain  oil,  was  unlawful  and  in  violation 
of  the  laws  of  Tennessee,  and  tended  to  suppress 
competition.  The  Supreme  Court  of  the  United 


51 


States  held  that  there  was  no  federal  question 
involved,  and  affirmed  the  decree. 

In  the  former  case  the  Supreme  Court  of  Tennessee 
said  (117  Tenn.,  646): 

The  evidence  offered  tended  to  prove  an 
agreement  conceived  and  effected  by  the 
Standard  Oil  Company  and  its  agents  to  pro¬ 
tect  the  oil  of  the  principal  then  stored  in 
Gallatin  from  competition  with  that  about  to 
be  imported  and  offered  for  sale  by  a  com¬ 
petitor,  and  not  to  protect  that  of  the  Evans¬ 
ville  Oil  Company  yet  to  be  transported  there. 

But  the  court  held  in  this  case  that  the  only  remedy 
against  the  corporation  was  proceedings  to  oust  it 
from  the  State,  whereupon  a  suit  was  brought,  and 
from  a  judgment  ousting  the  corporation  a  writ  of 
error  was  taken  to  the  Supreme  Court  of  the  United 
States,  and  the  judgment  affirmed.  The  Tennessee 
court  said  (120  Tenn.,  174,  176) : 

The  tendency  of  the  agreements  and  arrange¬ 
ments  above  referred  to,  and  we  think  the  in¬ 
evitable  purpose,  under  a  fair  deduction  from 
the  evidence,  was  to  lessen  competition  with 
the  defendant’s  business  at  Gallatin  in  respect 
of  the  oil  it  had  on  storage  there  and  was  offer¬ 
ing  for  sale. 

»’  >  v!/  A 

^ 

It  is  said  that,  while  the  securing  of  counter¬ 
mands  is  not  a  proper  way  to  conduct  business, 
yet  under  the  custom  of  trade  a  merchant  has 
the  right  to  countermand  an  order,  and  hence 
there  is  nothing  unlawful  in  making  such  coun¬ 
termands.  There  is  evidence  of  such  a  cus- 


f 


52 


tom  in  the  record,  and  if  the  merchants  referred 
to  had  made  those  countermands  for  their  own 
purposes,  unmoved  by  combination  or  agree¬ 
ment  with  a  third  party — in  this  case,  the  de¬ 
fendant  company  and  Holt  and  Rutherford — 
there  would  have  been  no  ground  of  action. 

“  The  difference,  in  legal  contemplation,  be¬ 
tween  individual  right  and  combined  action  in 
trade/’  said  the  court  in  Bailey  v.  Master 
Plumbers,  “is  seen  in  numerous  cases.” 

In  the  case  of  State  v.  Drayton  (82  Nebr.,  254) 
an  information  was  filed  against  the  Atlas  Elevator 
Co.,  a  corporation  created  under  the  laws  of  West 
Virginia  and  doing  business  in  Nebraska  in  the  sale 
and  distribution  of  lumber,  lime,  plaster,  cement,  and 
brick,  charging  them  with  violating  a  statute  against 
local,  unfair  discriminations  by  selling  a  commodity 
in  one  place  at  a  lower  rate  than  in  another  after 
making  due  allowance  for  distance,  etc.,  for  the  pur¬ 
pose  of  destroying  a  competitor.  The  court  held  the 
statute  constitutional,  and  said  (pp.  261,  264): 

It  is  within  the  knowledge  of  all  of  mature 
years  that  within  the  last  quarter  or  half  cen¬ 
tury  the  meats  furnished  the  people  of  our 
cities  and  towns  were  supplied  by  local  dealers 
who  purchased  their  live  stock  from  the  nearby 
farmer  or  stock  grower,  slaughtered  the  ani¬ 
mals,  and  supplied  wholesome  meats  at  rea¬ 
sonable  prices,  and  yet  paid  remunerative 
prices  for  the  live  animals,  saving  the  cost  of 
transportation  to  and  from  what  are  now  the 
exclusive  points  of  manufacture  and  produc- 


53 


tion.  That  both  the  producers  and  consumers 
are  losers  is  known  to  all.  That  this  condition 
has  been  brought  about  by  a  system  of  coercion 
and  underselling  “for  the  purpose  of  destroying 
the  business  ”  of  local  competitors  is  also  known 
to  all.  Is  there  no  power  anywhere  lodged  in 
the  State  to  prevent  this  or  remedy  the  evil'? 
If  there  is,  it  is  with  the  law-making  power. 
If  that  department  of  Government  has  the 
power,  it  must  be  by  the  exercise  of  the  right 
of  police  regulation.  Has  the  legislature  that 
power1?  *  *  * 

If  the  State  has  not  the  power  to  protect  its 
people  from  the  acts  of  those  who  have  for 
their  “purpose”  the  destruction  of  the  busi¬ 
ness  of  a  competitor  in  order  that  the  wrong¬ 
doer  may  have  a  monopoly,  its  powers  are 
much  more  limited  than  we  had  supposed. 

In  the  case  of  State  of  Minnesota  v.  Standard  Oil 
Co.  (126  N.  W.,  527),  suit  was  brought  to  forfeit  the 
license  of  the  Standard  Oil  Company  to  do  business  in 
Minnesota  under  a  statute  similar  to  that  before  the 
court  in  the  case  last  cited. 

Judgment  of  ouster  was  sustained  in  the  Supreme 
Court.  The  court  said  (p.  531) : 

The  public  policy,  not  only  of  Minnesota 
but  of  all  the  States  and  the  Federal  Govern¬ 
ment,  is  to  restrain  monopolies  and  to  encour¬ 
age  competition.  Everywhere  are  found  laws 
prohibiting  pools  and  combinations  in  restraint 
of  trade.  Here  we  have  one  of  the  principal 
products  of  petroleum,  kerosene,  which,  it  is 
claimed  in  the  complaint,  can  be  so  handled  by 


54 


a  powerful  corporation  that  competition  can 
be  stifled  without  resort  to  either  pool  or  com¬ 
bination.  The  complaint  charges  defendant 
discriminates  in  its  prices  for  the  purpose  of 
destroying  the  business  of  its  competitors,  and 
has  and  does  prevent  legitimate  competition. 
We  are  advised  of  no  other  product  or  article 
of  commerce,  except  other  petroleum  oils,  as 
to  which  such  a  practice  prevails.  The  demur¬ 
rer  admits  these  allegations.  All  these  condi¬ 
tions  were  before  the  legislature  and  furnished 
the  motive  for -the  legislation.  The  classifica¬ 
tion  was  neither  fanciful  nor  arbitrary,  but 
proper  and  necessary  to  meet  the  peculiar 
conditions  surrounding  the  distribution  of 
these  primary  products  of  petroleum.  ( Willis 
v.  Standard  Oil  Co .,  50  Minn.,  290,  52  N.  W., 
652 ;  Otis  v.  Parker ,  supra.) 

In  the  case  of  People  v.  American  Ice  Co.  (120  N.  Y. 
Sup.,  p.  443,  not  yet  officially  reported)  the  defend¬ 
ant  was  indicted  under  the  antimonopoly  statute  of 
New  York  for  combining  to  restrain  trade  and  mo¬ 
nopolize  commerce.  It  appeared  that  the  American 
Ice  Company  had  purchased  a  large  number  of  com¬ 
petitor’s  properties,  and  also  the  plants  and  business 
of  a  large  number  of  ice  dealers  in  the  Borough  of 
Manhattan,  and  had  taken  from  them  a  contract  not 
to  further  engage  in  the  business  for  ten  years.  To 
show  the  intent  which  the  defendant  had  in  purchasing 
this  property  the  court  permitted  the  State  to  show 
unfair  methods  of  competition  in  the  effort  to  de¬ 
stroy  competition.  In  charging  the  jury  the  court, 
Wheeler,  J.,  said  (p.  452) : 


55 


It  was  within  this  rule  that  the  court  per¬ 
mitted  the  prosecution  to  show  in  this  case 
the  methods  employed  by  the  defendant  in  its 
efforts  to  destroy  competition  and  acquire  the 
business  of  independent  ice  dealers.  The  pros¬ 
ecution  was  permitted  to  show  that,  under 
instructions  from  the  president  of  the  defend¬ 
ant,  men  were  sent  to  follow  the  wagons  of 
independent  retail  dealers,  to  list  their  cus¬ 
tomers,  and  then  others  were  sent  to  solicit 
their  trade  and  take  it  from  them  by  offering 
to  sell  ice  to  them  at  any  price  which  would 
secure  their  patronage  and  take  it  from  the 
independent,  and  thus  force  the  independent 
dealer  to  sell  his  business  to  the  defendant  or 
retire  from  it  altogether.  In  other  words,  their 
testimony  was  received  as  tending  to  show 
that  at  the  time  many  of  these  contracts  with 
restrictive  agreements  against  going  into  the 
ice  business  were  obtained  the  defendant  was 
also  endeavoring  in  other  ways  to  monopolize 
the  field.  So,  too,  the  prosecution  was  per¬ 
mitted  to  show  as  tending  to  establish  an 
attempt  and  design  to  create  a  monopoly  and 
drive  independent  dealers  out  of  business,  or 
force  them  to  sell  to  the  defendant  so  it  could 
handle  and  control  the  ice  business,  that  de¬ 
fendant  raised  the  price  of  ice  at  the  ice 
bridges,  so  that  the  independent  dealer  could 
not  pay  the  price  asked  and  supply  his  regular 
customers  without  doing  so  at  a  financial  loss. 
The  prosecution  claim  this  was  done  arbitra¬ 
rily  and  without  justification.  It  is  very 
manifest  the  small  dealer  could  not  continue 
in  business  under  such  conditions  without 


56 


sooner  or  later  becoming  bankrupt.  It  is  true, 
as  has  been  argued  by  the  able  counsel  for 
the  defendant,  that  the  defendant  had  the 
legal  right  to  refuse  to  sell  its  ice  to  the  inde¬ 
pendent  competing  ice  dealer.  It  had  a  right 
to  ask  such  price  for  its  ice  as  it  saw  fit,  it 
had  the  right  to  go  into  the  district  and  under¬ 
sell  the  independent  dealer,  but  at  the  same 
time  these  acts  were  permitted  to  be  shown  as 
reflecting  and  tending  to  show  a  design  and 
purpose  in  one  way  or  the  other  to  drive  the 
independent  dealer  from  the  field  of  competi¬ 
tion,  so  that  ultimately  this  defendant  would 
be  the  sole  and  only  dealer  selling  ice  in  the 
districts  in  which  the  independent  operated, 
thereby  establishing  a  monopoly  of  the  ice 
business  in  those  districts,  and  thus  enabling 
the  defendant  to  control  the  price  to  be  asked 
of  the  consumer. 

This  evidence  became  very  important  as 
throwing  strong  light  upon  the  question  as  to 
whether  in  making  the  many  contracts  taken 
from  independent  dealers  which  contained  the 
restriction  that  the  seller  should  not  enter  the 
ice  business  for  a  given  number  of  years,  those 
contracts  were  made  “for  the  purpose  of 
creating,  establishing,  or  maintaining  a  monop¬ 
oly 7  ?  as  declared  illegal  by  the  statute. 

It  may  be,  and  often  is  the  case,  that  tem¬ 
porary  low  prices  are  given  to  the  consuming 
public  for  the  very  purpose  of  crushing  rivals 
in  business  to  the  end  of  ultimately  controlling 
and  raising  prices  to  the  permanent  disadvan¬ 
tage  of  the  public.  It  is  for  you  to  say  whether 
such  was  the  object  in  this  case.  The  court 


57 


can  not  call  the  jury’s  attention  to  all  the  evi¬ 
dence  bearing  on  this  subject.  It  can  only 
reiterate  the  jury  have  the  right,  and  it  is 
their  duty,  to  give  due  weight  to  every  fact 
and  circumstance  which  throws  light  upon 
the  purpose  with  which  these  restrictive  con¬ 
tracts  were  obtained.  If  made  “for  the  pur¬ 
pose  of  creating,  establishing,  or  maintaining  a 
monopoly,”  then  the  contracts  violate  the 
statute  and  are  illegal. 

And  what  I  have  said  relative  to  the  con¬ 
tracts  with  the  independent  retail  route  men 
also  applies  to  certain  other  contracts  intro¬ 
duced  in  evidence  in  this  case.  For  instance, 
the  contract  with  Willis  A.  Winne,  made 
April  26,  1905,  whereby  Winne  sold  or 
leased  to  the  defendant  certain  ice  houses, 
bridges,  and  business,  and  covenanted  not  to 
engage  in  selling  ice  at  retail  or  wholesale  in 
Greater  New  York,  and  like  contracts  with 
others  not  to  increase  the  crop  of  ice  to  be 
harvested. 

In  defining  monopoly  the  court  said  (p.  456) : 

What  constitutes  a  monopoly'?  The  mo¬ 
nopoly  condemned  by  the  statute  need  not  be  a 
complete  and  absolute  one,  excluding  all  com¬ 
petition — a  complete  control  of  the  production 
and  sale  of  a  commodity.  “A  monopoly  in  the 
modern  sense  is  created  where,  as  the  result  of 
effort  to  that  end,  previously  competing  busi¬ 
nesses  are  so  concentrated  in  the  hands  of  a 
single  person  or  corporation,  or  in  a  few  persons 
or  corporations  acting  together,  that  they  have 
power  to  practically  control  prices  of  a  com¬ 
modity  and  thus  suppress  competition.”  “A 


58 


monopoly  exists  where  all  or  nearly  all  of  an 
article  of  trade  or  commerce  within  a  com¬ 
munity  or  district  is  brought  within  the  hands 
of  one  man  or  set  of  men,  or  of  a  corporation 
or  set  of  corporations  acting  together,  so  as  to 
practically  bring  the  handling  or  production 
of  a  commodity  within  such  single  control,  to 
the  exclusion  of  competition  or  free  traffic 
therein.” 

Did  the  defendant  effect  or  attempt  to 
make  such  an  arrangement?  If  so,  it  vio¬ 
lated  the  statute  in  attempting  to  create  and 
maintain  a  monopoly.  Combinations  and  ar¬ 
rangements  are  unlawful  the  design  and  effect 
of  which  necessarily  is  to  give  the  party  put¬ 
ting  or  attempting  to  put  them  into  execu¬ 
tion  a  monopoly  more  or  less  for  any  length 
of  time  of  the  production  or  sale  of  a  commod¬ 
ity,  or  to  regulate  or  control  the  price  of  a  com¬ 
modity  to  insure  a  pecuniary  advantage  in  re¬ 
straint  of  trade  which  would  be  injurious  to 
the  community.  And  right  at  this  point  we 
may  with  perfect  propriety  say  and  charge 
you  that  such  a  monopoly  as  we  have  defined, 
or  the  attempt  to  create  one,  need  not  cover 
the  entire  territory  of  the  Borough  of  Man¬ 
hattan.  If  the  monopoly  sought  to  be  estab¬ 
lished  was  one  covering  a  part  of  the  territory 
of  the  borough,  of  one  district  in  the  borough, 
so  that  the  consumers  in  that  portion  of  the 
city  were  deprived  of  the  benefit  of  free  compe¬ 
tition,  then  the  defendant  would  be  just  as 
guilty  as  though  the  monopoly  extended  to 
every  foot  of  land  within  the  boundaries  of 
Manhattan. 


59 


VI. 

Railroad  freight  rates. 

The  testimony  on  this  subject  is  sufficiently  re¬ 
viewed  in  the  former  brief  (vol.  2,  pp.  196  to  382). 
We  desire,  however,  to  call  the  court’s  attention  to 
the  fact  that  since  the  argument  of  this  case  the 
conviction  of  the  Standard  Oil  Company  for  receiving 
concessions  in  rates  from  Olean  to  Vermont  points 
has  been  affirmed  by  the  unanimous  opinion  of  the 
Circuit  Court  of  Appeals  for  the  Second  Circuit.  (See 
Standard  Oil  Company  v.  United  States,  179  Fed., 
617,  opinion  by  Judge  Noyes.)  The  facts  on  which 
that  case  was  affirmed  are  fully  proved  in  the  case 
at  bar,  and  the  testimony  will  be  found  reviewed  in 
our  previous  brief,  volume  2,  page  285  et  seq.  This 
court  has  very  recently  refused  to  grant  a  writ  of 
certiorari  to  review  this  judgment. 


VII. 

Growth  of  competitors  of  the  Standard  Oil  Company. 

In  chapter  12,  pages  99  et  seq.,  volume  2,  of  ap¬ 
pellants’  brief,  they  treat  of  the  growth  of  their 
competitors.  It  is  true  that  since  the  Department 
of  Commerce  and  Labor  commenced  its  investigation 
of  the  Standard  Oil  Company  and  exposed  its  meth¬ 
ods,  and  the  Government  brought  suit,  the  inde¬ 
pendents  have  had  an  opportunity  to  do  business 
and  have  grown  rapidly.  This  investigation  was 
commenced  in  1904  and  the  principal  increase  in  the 
business  of  the  independent  manufacturers  and  deal- 


60 


ers  has  been  since  that  time.  But  once  remove  the 
fear  of  the  law  and  there  is  no  question  that  the 
Standard  could  and  would  eliminate  these  inde¬ 
pendents,  as  it  has  done  before. 

There  are,  however,  many  inaccuracies  in  the  state¬ 
ments  in  their  brief: 

(1)  It  is  stated  that  there  are  126  independent 
refineries.  There  is  no  testimony  to  substantiate 
this.  Mr.  Archbold  presented  a  list  of  what  he  called 
11  independent  refineries’7  (Ex.  277,  vol.  19,  Rec.).  As 
a  matter  of  fact,  there  are  in  this  list  many  repetitions, 
the  National  Refining  Company  being  included  six 
times.  A  large  number  of  these  so-called  refineries  are 
unimportant  compounding  works;  and  most  if  not 
all  of  the  refineries  in  Kansas  have  been  constructed 
since  the  bringing  of  this  suit.  Archbold  admitted  on 
cross-examination  that  he  had  no  personal  knowl¬ 
edge  of  the  accuracy  of  this  list  (vol.  17,  Rec.,  3436, 
3438),  and  it  is  not  substantiated  by  any  other 
witness. 

(2)  The  statement  of  the  Standard’s  proportion  of 
the  consumption  of  crude  oil  is  absolutely  misleading. 
The  Government  gives  in  its  brief,  with  accuracy, 
the  percentage  manufactured  by  the  Standard  and 
the  percentage  by  the  independents.  (Gov.  brief, 
vol.  1,  p.  144;  Petitioners’  Ex.  394,  vol.  8,  p.  941.) 

In  1904  the  Standard  used  56,157,009  barrels  out 
of  a  total  crude  oil  refined  in  the  United  States  of 
66,982,862  barrels. 

The  defendant  says  that  in  1906  it  manufactured 
58,924,601  barrels  of  crude,  while  the  independents 


61 


refined  “or  otherwise  utilized  and  sold”  53,528,855. 
No  one  knows  better  than  they  that  that  includes  a 
large  amount  of  crude  sold  by  producers  in  California 
and  Texas  for  fuel  oil.  As  a  matter  of  fact,  the 
amount  of  refinable  oil  refined  and  sold  by  the  Stand¬ 
ard  in  this  country  is  given  by  the  Government  in  its 
brief. 

VIII. 

Tank  cars. 

It  is  stated  that  the  Standard  Oil  Co.  has  only 
48  per  cent  of  the  tank  cars  used  for  the  transpor¬ 
tation  of  oil  in  the  United  States,  and  all  the  balance 
are  attributable  to  competitors.  The  fact  is,  the 
list  includes  all  of  the  oil  tank  cars  in  use — those 
used  by  the  railroads  for  transporting  crude  oil  for 
railway  consumption,  and  those  used  by  persons 
who  are  not  engaged  in  the  manufacturing  business 
at  all  but  who  use  them  for  the  transportation  of 
crude  oil  for  fuel  purposes. 

IX. 

Competing  refineries  purchased  and  dismantled. 

In  chapter  3,  volume  2,  of  appellants’  brief,  and 
at  various  places  in  the  revised  brief  of  Mr.  Watson 
(notably  pp.  337,  348),  counsel  treat  of  the  develop¬ 
ment  of  the  Standard  Oil  Company’s  business  as 
though  it  was  a  natural  growth,  and  they  purchased 
refineries  simply  to  add  to  their  business  and  increase 
their  capacity.  The  testimony  does  not  bear  out 
any  such  claim,  as  a  large  number  of  refineries  were 
purchased  and  dismantled,  some  as  recently  as  1900 
and  1901. 


62 


We  have  prepared  a  schedule  which  we  print  here¬ 
with  (Appendix  C)  showing,  as  far  as  we  are  able  to 
do  so  from  the  testimony,  the  purchase  or  other 
acquisition  of  competitors,  either  through  combina¬ 
tion  of  stock  ownership,  or  the  purchase  of  stock  or 
properties;  the  date,  the  nature  of  the  property,  and 
business,  the  size  and  value  thereof  where  it  can  be 
furnished,  and  whether  subsequently  operated  or 
discontinued.  The  Government  does  not  pretend 
that  this  is  a  complete  list  of  properties  acquired  by 
the  Standard;  a  complete  list  was  demanded  of  the 
defendants,  but  was  never  produced. 

This  schedule  shows  that  the  Standard  acquired 
123  refineries  (many  of  which  also  did  a  market¬ 
ing  business),  11  lubricating  oil  works,  1  vaseline 
works,  24  pipe-line  concerns,  and  64  exclusively  mar¬ 
keting  concerns;  a  total  number  of  223. 

Neither  did  these  acquisitions  all  occur  at  an  early 
date.  About  half  of  them,  in  number,  occurred  since 
1879,  and  many  important  ones  between  1890  and 
1902,  for  instance: 

Scofield,  Shurmer  &  Teagle,  competitors  of  the 
Standard  from  a  very  early  date,  doing  a  large  market¬ 
ing  business  in  seven  or  eight  Central  and  Western 
States,  and  owning  refineries  at  Cleveland  and  Scio, 
Ohio,  purchased  in  1901. 

Pacific  Coast  Oil  Company,  having  a  small  refin¬ 
ery,  producing  properties,  pipe  lines,  and  marketing 
business  in  California,  purchased  by  the  Standard 
Oil  Company  of  New  Jersey  in  1900  for  $761,000. 


63 


Manhattan  Oil  Company,  having  a  refinery,  pro¬ 
ducing  properties,  and  pipe  lines  in  Ohio  and  Indiana, 
and  eight  or  nine  hundred  tank  cars,  acquired  in 
1899,  value  about  $2,800,000. 

Indiana  Pipe  Line  and  Refining  Company,  having 
a  large  refinery  at  Kankakee,  Ill.,  just  constructed, 
and  180  miles  of  new  pipe  line,  acquired  at  the  same 
time  the  Manhattan  was  acquired. 

Argand  Refining  Company,  having  a  refinery  at 
Marietta,  Ohio,  purchased  in  1898  for  about  $180,000. 

Crescent  Pipe  Line  Company,  having  a  trunk  line 
from  western  Pennsylvania  to  the  seaboard ;  the 
Mellon  gathering  lines  in  the  oil  fields  of  western 
Pennsylvania;  and  the  Crescent  refinery  at  Philadel¬ 
phia,  nearly  completed;  purchased  in  1895. 

National,  Schwartz,  Western,  Mutual,  and  Inter¬ 
national  refineries  at  Titusville  and  Reno,  Pa.,  pur¬ 
chased  in  1895. 

The  two  large,  modern  refineries  of  the  Globe 
Refining  companies  of  Pittsburg  and  Philadelphia, 
together  with  the  Western  and  Atlantic  pipe  lines, 
reaching  Pittsburg  from  the  oil  regions  of  Pennsyl¬ 
vania,  acquired  in  1890  for  $1,274,828,  in  Standard 
Oil  Trust  certificates  and  cash. 

Of  the  refineries  named  in. this  schedule  the  testi¬ 
mony  shows  about  75  were  dismantled.  As  to  a 
great  many  of  the  others  purchased  there  is  no  spe¬ 
cific  testimony  in  the  record  that  they  were  dis¬ 
mantled,  but  as  a  matter  of  fact  most  of  them  were 
undoubtedly  dismantled,  as  the  Standard  now  has 

72719—11 - 5 


64 


all  of  its  refining  properties  combined  into  about  20 
separate  works,  including  in  that  number  the  works 
of  the  Corsicana  and  Security  companies.  (Peti¬ 
tioner’s  Exhibit  393.) 

Of  the  17  refineries  in  Cleveland  acquired  in  1871 
and  1872,  12  were  immediately  dismantled. 

Mr.  Archbold  testified  in  1888  that  up  to  that 
time  they  had  purchased  and  dismantled  about  50. 

They  dismantled  the  refineries  of  Scofield,  Shurmer 
&  Teagle  in  1901,  the  refinery  of  the  Manhattan  Oil 
Company  in  1900,  the  new  refinery  of  the  Indiana 
Pipe  Line  &  Refining  Company  in  1900,  the  refinery 
of  the  Argand  Refining  Company  in  1898,  and  those 

acquired  in  1890  and  1895  above  named. 

Mr.  Watson  says  (p.  337,  revised  brief)  that  only 

four  refineries  of  any  importance  were  purchased  be¬ 
tween  1882  and  1900.  There  were  twenty-six  good 
sized  refineries — some  of  them  large  ones — purchased 
and  dismantled  between  1882  and  1902  ;  twenty- two 
of  them  during  the  period  in  which  Mr.  Watson  says 
there  were  only  four.  (See  Appendix  C,  hereto 
attached.) 

George  W.  Wickersham, 

Attorney  General . 

Frank  B.  Kellogg,, 

C.  A.  Severance, 

Special  Assistants  to  the  Attorney  General . 


APPENDIX  A. 


States  having  antitrust  constitutional  and  statutory  provisions , 

and  references  thereto. 


ALABAMA. 

Crim.  Code,  1907,  secs.  7579-7581. 

ARKANSAS. 

Const.,  1874,  art.  2,  sec.  19. 

Kirby’s  Digest  Ark.  Stat.,  1904,  secs.  1976-1982. 

Acts  of  1905,  act  No.  1. 

CALIFORNIA. 

Civil  Code,  sec.  1673. 

Stat.,  1907,  ch.  530. 

FLORIDA. 

Gen.  Stat.,  1906,  title  6,  ch.  4  (confined  to  beef  and  meats). 

GEORGIA. 

Const.,  art.  4,  sec.  2,  par.  4. 

Code,  1895,  secs.  5800,  3668. 

Supp.,  1901,  Code,  title  18,  ch.  3  (held  unconstitutional  in 
Brown  v.  Jacobs  P.  Co.,  115  Ga.,  429). 

IDAHO. 

Const.,  art.  11,  sec.  18. 

ILLINOIS. 

Hurd’s  Rev.  Stat.,  1908,  p.  765,  secs.  269a,  269b. 

INDIANA, 

Bums’  Anno,  Stat.,  1908,  ch.  21,  secs.  3866-3892. 

(65) 


66 


IOWA. 

Code,  1897,  secs.  5060-5062. 
Laws,  1909,  ch.  225. 


KANSAS. 

Rev.  Stat.,  1909,  ch.  81. 

KENTUCKY. 

Const.,  sec.  198. 

Carrolls  Stat.,  1903,  ch.  101. 

LOUISIANA. 

Const.,  art.  190. 

Wolff’s  Rev.  Laws,  1904,  pp.  1804-1806. 

MAINE. 

R.  S.,  1903,  ch.  47,  secs.  53-55. 

MARYLAND. 

Const.,  Decl.  of  Rights,  art.  41. 

MASSACHUSETTS. 

Supp.  to  Rev.  Laws,  1902-1908,  p.  511,  act  of  1907. 
Laws,  1908,  ch.  454. 


MICHIGAN. 

Comp.  Laws,  1897,  secs.  11377-11383  (act  of  1889). 
Pub.  Acts,  1899,  act  No.  255. 

Pub.  Acts,  1905,  act.  No.  329. 

MINNESOTA. 

Const.,  art.  4,  sec.  35. 

Rev.  Laws,  1905,  sec.  5168. 

Laws,  1907,  ch.  269. 

MISSISSIPPI. 

Const.,  sec.  198. 

Code,  1906,  ch.  145. 

Laws,  1908,  ch.  119. 


67 


MISSOURI. 

Rev.  Stat.  ,1909,  ch.  98. 

MONTANA. 

Const.,  art.  15,  sec.  20. 

Rev.  Pen.  Code,  1907,  ch.  8  (held  unconstitutional  in  part 
in  State  v.  Cudahy  PJcg.  Co.,  33  Mont.,  181;  82  Pac.,  833). 

NEBRASKA. 

Cobbey’s  Anno.  Stat.,  1909,  secs.  12028-12049. 

NEW  MEXICO. 

Comp.  Laws,  1897,  secs.  1292-1294. 

Laws,  1907,  ch.  18. 

NEW  YORK. 

Birdseye’s  Anno.  Cons.  Laws,  1910,  art.  22,  pp.  1875-1877; 
and  p.  5747. 

NORTH  CAROLINA. 

Const.,  art.  1,  sec.  31. 

Laws,  1907,  chs.  218,  219. 

Laws,  1909,  ch.  448. 


NORTH  DAKOTA. 

Laws,  1907,  chs.  258,  259,  260. 

OHIO. 

Bates’  Anno.  Stat.,  1908,  ch.  19a,  secs.  4427-1  to  4427-12. 

OKLAHOMA. 

Const.,  art.  5,  sec.  44;  art.  9,  secs.  41,  45. 

Comp.  Laws,  1909,  ch.  113. 

SOUTH  CAROLINA. 

Const.,  art.  9,  sec.  13. 

Crim.  Code,  1902,  secs.  212-216. 

Civil  Code,  1902,  secs.  2845-2847. 


68 


SOUTH  DAKOTA. 


Const.,  art.  17,  sec.  20. 

Comp.  Laws,  1908,  vol.  2,  p.  663,  secs.  1,  2,  3. 

Laws,  1909,  ch.  224. 

TENNESSEE. 

Const.,  art.  1,  sec.  22. 

Code,  1896,  secs.  3185-3191,  6622-6625. 

Laws,  1897,  ch.  93. 

Laws,  1903,  ch.  140. 

Laws,  1907,  chs.  36,  360. 

TEXAS. 

Const.,  art.  1,  sec.  26. 

Supp.  Sayles  Civ.  Stat.,  1908,  title  108,  pp.  437-449. 

UTAH. 

Const.,  art.  12,  sec.  20. 

Comp.  Laws,  1907,  secs.  1752-1762. 


Const.,  sec.  165. 


VIRGINIA. 

WASHINGTON. 


Const.,  art.  12,  sec.  22. 

Laws,  1907,  ch.  139,  sec.  9,  relates  to  commission  mer¬ 
chants  only. 

WISCONSIN. 


Stat.,  1898,  secs.  1747e  to  1747g  and  1791  j. 

Supp.,  1899-1906,  secs.  1770g,  1791j,  17911,  1791n. 

WYOMING. 

Const.,  art.  10,  sec.  8;  art.  1,  sec.  30. 

A  convenient  summary  of  these  constitutions  and  statutes 
will  be  found  in  Stimson  on  Fed.  &  St.  Const.,  secs.  518,  580, 
and  Noyes  on  Intercorp.  Rel.  (2d  ed.),  ch.  41. 


ous  'periods . 


1870 


Stockholders  of  Standard; 
Ohio,  shortly  after  its 
in  1870. 


;ck  of  the  20  com- 
3o.  of  New  Jersey, 


72719 


1907 


Amount  of  stock  in  Standard  Oil  Co.  of  New  Jersey 
held  on  August  19,  1907,  by  the  persons  named  in 
the  preceding  columns. 


Name.  (Number  of  shai 
given  in  recorc 

Number  of 
shares. 

Name. 

Number  of 
shares. 

Andrews,  Samuel. 

Brewster,  Benj. 

Flagler,  H.  M. 

.... 

28,  000 

Flagler,  H.  M . 

30,  500 

Handy,  T.  P. 

Jennings,  Oliver. 

Rockefeller,  John  D. 

.... 

256,  854 

Rockefeller,  John  D . . 

247, 692 

Rockefeller,  Wm. 

-  -  -  - 

13,  000 

Rockefeller,  Wm . . . 

11,  700 

Stone,  Amasa. 

Witt,  Stillman. 

. . . . 

8,  000 

Archbold,  J.  D . 

6, 000 

Camden,  J.  N . 

600 

3, 000 

Hanna,  H.  M . 

4, 000 

3,  700 

Heye,  C.  F.  G . 

2,514 

un- 

"  (U.  S.  T.  Co.,  trustee  un- 

der  will  of.) 

Huntington,  estate  of  John. . . . 

6,  500 

2,  034 

Hutchins,  H.  A . 

2,  067 

.... 

17,  094 

Lockhart,  estate  of  Chas . 

94 

-  -  -  - 

2, 000 

.... 

4,  900 

Macy,  estate  of  Josiah . 

4,  900 

APPENDIX  B.— SHEET  L 

Schedule  showing  changes  in  the  personnel  of  the  owners  of  the  stock  in  the  Standard  organization  at  various  periods. 


1870 

1879  ! 

1882 

j 

1892 

1899 

Stockholders  of  Standard  Oil  Co.  of 
Ohio,  shortly  after  its  organization 
m  1870. 

Stockholders  of  Standard  Oil  Co.  of  Ohio  and 
various  corporations  who  signed  trust  agreement 
of  April  8, 1879. 

L  

Stockholders  of  various  corporations 
who  signed  trust  agreement  of  Jan¬ 
uary  1, 1882. 

Trust-certificate  holders  who  liqui¬ 
dated  in  1892. 

Stockholders  who  exchanged  stock  of  the  20  com¬ 
panies  for  that  of  Standard  Oil  Co.  of  New  Jersey, 
in  1899-1900. 

Name.  (Number  of  shares  held  not 
given  in  record.) 

Name. 

Number  of 
shares. 

Name.  (Number  of  shares  held  not 
given  in  record.) 

! 

Name.  (Number  of  shares  held  not 
given  in  record.) 

Name. 

Number  of 
shares. 

Andrews,  Samuel. 

Brewster,  Benj. 

Brewster,  Benj . 

409 

Brewster,  Benj. 

Brewster,  Benj. 

Flagler,  H.  M. 

Flagler,  H.  M . 

3,  000 

Flagler,  H.  M. 

Flagler,  H.  M. 

Flagler,  H.  M . 

28,  000 

Handy,  T.  P. 

Jennings,  Oliver. 

Jennings,  O.  B . 

818 

Jennings,  0.  B. 

Jennings,  O.  B. 

Rockefeller,  John  D. 

Rockefeller,  John  T) ......... . 

S.  984 

Rockefeller,  John  D. 

R ockefeller  John  T) 

Rockefeller.  John  D  . 

256,  854 

Rockefeller,  Wm. 

Rockefeller.  Wm  . . 

7 

1,600 

Rockefeller,  Wm. 

Rockefeller,  Wm. 

Rockefeller.  Wm 

13,  000 

Stone,  Amasa. 

Witt,  Stillman. 

NEW  NAMES. 

* 

Andrews,  W.  C . . . 

990 

Andrews,  W.  C. 

Archbold,  John  D . 

350 

Archbold,  J.  D. 

Archbold,  J.  D. 

Archbold,  John  D . 

8,  000 

Arter,  F.  A . 

35 

Bostwick,  J.  A . 

1,  872 

Bostwick,  J.  A. 

Bushnell,  D . 

97 

Bushnell,  D. 

- 

Camden,  J.  N . 

200 

Camden,  J.  N. 

Hanna  (H  M  )  . 

' 

Hanna,  H.  M. 

Hanna,  H.  M . 

3,  000 

and 

263 

• 

Chapin  (G.  W.) . 

• 

Chapin,  G.  W. 

Harkness,  S.  V . 

2,  925 

Harkness,  S.  V. 

Harkness,  L.  G . . . . 

178 

Harkness,  D.  M . 

323 

Harkness,  D.  M. 

Heye,  Gustave . . . 

178 

Heye,  C.  F.  G. 

Heye,  C.  F.  G . 

3,  700 

(U.  S.  T.  Co.,  trustee  un- 

der  will.) 

Huntington,  John . 

584 

Huntington,  John. 

Hutchins  H  A 

111 

Hutchins,  H.  A. 

Hutchins,  H.  A . 

2,  034 

T  q  vf  dins 

1,408 

Lockhart,  Chas. 

Lockhart,  Chas . 

17,  094 

\Tr*OiT*orrAV  A  M 

118 

McGregor,  A.  M. 

McGregor,  A.  M . 

2,000 

XTx  v  vJ  1  v^vl  J  ■•••••*** 

Macy,  estate  of  Josiah . 

892 

Macy,  estate  of  Josiah. 

Macy,  estate  of  Josiah . 

4,900 

1907 


Amount  of  stock  in  Standard  Oil  Co.  of  New  Jersey 
held  on  August  19,  1907,  by  the  persons  named  in 
the  preceding  columns. 


Name. 


Flagler,  H.  M . 

Rockefeller,  John  D 
Rockefeller,  Wm  . . . 


Archbold,  J.  D 

Camden,  J.  N. 
Hanna,  H.  M.. 


Number  of 
shares. 


Heye,  C.  F.  G . . 

(U.  S.  T.  Co.,  trustee  un 
der  will  of.) 

Huntington,  estate  of  John. . 

Hutchins,  H.  A . 

Lockhart,  estate  of  Chas . 

Macy,  estate  of  Josiah . 


30,  500 


247,  692 
11,  700 


6,  000 


600 
4, 000 


2,  514 

6,  500 
2,  067 
94 

4,900 


72719—11.  (To  face  page  68.)  No.  1 


Apr 

m  at  various  periods — Continued. 

3  870 

1907 

Stockholders  of  Standard  ( 

k  of  the  20  com- 

Amount  of  stock  in  Standard  Oil  Co.  of  New  Jersey 

Ohio,  shortly  after  its  orj 
in  1870. 

o.  of  New  Jersey, 

held  on  August  19,  1907,  by  the  persons  named  in 
the  preceding  columns. 

Name.  (Number  of  shares 

Number  of 

Name. 

Number  of 

given  in  record.) 

shares. 

shares. 

500 

Macy,  W.  H.,  jr . 

909 

48,  000 

Payne,  O.  H . 

40,  000 

500 

Pouch,  estate  of  A.  J . 

500 

50,  000 

Pratt,  estate  of  Charles . 

52,  802 

5, 000 

Pratt,  C.  M . 

5,  000 

»  m  » 

18,  820 

Rogers,  H.  H . 

16, 020 

... 

1,296 

Thompson,  W.  P . 

1,762 

5,  258 

Warden,  estate  of  Wm.  G . 

5,  858 

- 

800 

Ward  well,  W.  T . 

750 

1,  358 

York,  Julia  H . 

1,600 

... 

2,  366 

Auchincloss,  Emma  B . 

2,366 

.  .  .  . 

58,  200 

Harkness,  C.  W . 

43,  400 

72719—1 

2,  366 

Jennings,  Annie  B . 

2,  373 

APPENDIX  B.  SHEET  2. — Schedule  showing  changes  in  the  personnel  oj  the  owners  oj  the  stock  i 


3  870 


Stockholders  of  Standard  Oil  Co.  of 
Ohio,  shortly  after  its  organization 
in  1870. 


Name.  (Number  of  shares  held  not 
given  in  record.) 


1879 

1882 

1892 

Stockholders  of  Standard  Oil  Co.  of  Ohio  and 
various  corporations  who  signed  trust  agreement 
of  April  8,  1879. 

Stockholders  of  various  corporations 
who  signed  trust  agreement  of  Jan¬ 
uary  1, 1882. 

Trust-certificate  holders  who  liqui¬ 
dated  in  1892. 

Name. 

Number  of 

Name.  (Number  of  shares  held  not 

Name.  (Number  of  shares  held  not 

shares. 

given  in  record.) 

given  in  record.) 

new  names — continued. 

Macy,  W.  H . 

59 

Macy,  W.  H. 

Macy,  W.  H.,  jr . 

28 

Macy,  W.  H.,  jr. 

Payne,  0.  H . 

2,  637 

Payne,  0.  H. 

Payne,  0.  H. 

Payne,  0.  H.,  trustee . 

Payne,  H.  W . 

61 

292 

Payne,  0.  H.,  trustee. 

Pouch,  A.  J . 

178 

Pouch,  A.  J. 

Pratt,  Charles . 

2,  700 

Pratt,  Charles. 

Pratt,  estate  of  Charles. 

Pratt,  C.  M . 

200 

Pratt,  C.  M. 

Pratt,  H.  A . 

15 

Pratt,  H.  A. 

Rogers,  H.  H . 

910 

Rogers,  H.  H. 

Rogers,  H.  H. 

Thompson,  W.  P . 

132 

Thompson,  W.  P. 

Vandergrift,  J.  J . 

500 

Vandergrift,  J.  J. 

Warden,  Frew  &  Co . 

485 

Warden,  Frew  &  Co. 

Warden,  Jos.  L . . . 

98 

Warden,  Jos.  L. 

Warden,  Wm.  G . 

1,292 

Warden,  Wm.  G. 

Wardwell,  W.  T . 

78 

Wardwell,  W.  T. 

NEW  NAMES. 

Arter,  L.  K. 

Bushnell,  T.  C. 

Davis,  Henry  L. 

Flagler,  Mrs.  H.  M. 

Harkness,  D.  M.,  trustee. 

Wheaton,  Louise  C. 

York,  Julia  H. 

1 

NEW  NAMES. 

Auchincloss,  Emma  B. 

Harkness,  C.  W. 

Jennings,  Annie  B. 

72719—11.  (To  face  page  68.)  No.  2 


the  Standard  organization  at  various  'periods  Continued. 


1899 


Stockholders  who  exchanged  stock  of  the  20  com¬ 
panies  for  that  of  Standard  Oil  Co.  of  New  Jersey, 
in  1899-1900. 

Name. 

Number  of 
shares. 

- - - 

Macy,  W.  H.,  jr.. . 

500 

Payne,  0.  H . 

48,  000 

Pouch,  A.  J . 

500 

Pratt,  estate  of  Charles . 

50,  000 

Pratt,  C.  M . 

5,  000 

Rogers,  II .  H . 

18,  820 

Thompson,  W.  P . 

1,296 

Warden,  estate  of  Wm.  G . 

5,  258 

Wardwell,  W.  T . 

800 

York,  Julia  H . 

1,358 

Auchincloss,  Emma  B . 

2,  366 

Harkness,  C.  W . 

58,  200 

Jennings,  Annie  B . 

2,366 

1907 


Amount  of  stock  in  Standard  Oil  Co.  of  New  Jersey 
held  on  August  19,  1907,  by  the  persons  named  in 
the  preceding  columns. 


Name. 

Number  of 
shares. 

Macy,  W.  H.,  jr . 

909 

Payne,  O.  H . 

40,  000 

Pouch,  estate  of  A.  J . 

500 

Pratt,  estate  of  Charles . 

52,  802 

Pratt,  C.  M . 

5,  000 

Rogers,  H.  H . 

16,  020 

Thompson,  W.  P . 

1,  762 

Warden,  estate  of  Wm.  G . 

5,  858 

Wardwell,  W.  T . 

750 

York,  Julia  H . 

1,  600 

Auchincloss,  Emma  B  . . 

2,  366 

Harkness,  C.  W . 

43,  400 

Jennings,  Annie  B.  .  . . 

2,373 

APpft'  at  various  'periods — Continued. 


1870 


Ohio,  shortly  after  its 
in  1870. 


72719 


1907 

ck  of  the  20  com- 
Co.  of  New  Jersey, 

Amount  of  stock  in  Standard  Oil  Co.  of  New  Jersey 
held  on  August  19,  1907,  by  the  persons  named  in 
the  preceding  columns. 

' 

Number  of 
shares. 

Name. 

Number  of 
shares. 

5,  470 

Jennings,  Esther . 

5,  500 

.... 

2,  366 

James,  Helen  J . 

2, 373 

.... 

2, 366 

Jennings,  Oliver  G . 

2,  300 

.... 

2, 411 

Jennings,  Walter . 

2,  550 

.... 

5, 400 

Tilford,  Wesley  H . 

6, 000 

.... 

700 

820 

Alexander,  J.  H . 

700 

.... 

2,  500 

Bedford,  E.  T . 

3,  300 

.... 

500 

Bemis,  W.  E . 

615 

.... 

2,  600 

546 

Bishop,  trustees  estate  of  H.  R. 

1,  598 

.... 

60 

Bonnell,  H.  H . . 

Bostwick,  A.  C.: 

576 

or... 

s: 

1,500 

F.  L.  &  T.  Co.  trustee  for. . 

Bostwick,  A.  C.: 

1,  500 

•  •  •  • 

1,000 

U.  S.  T.  Co.  trustee  for — 

Bostwick,  A.  F.: 

2, 217 

•118- 

500 

N.  Y.  L.  I.  &  T.  Co.  trus¬ 
tee  for. 

500 

■a: 

6, 048 

Bostwick,  Helen  C . 

Bostwick,  H.  C.,  and  others: 

6, 048 

r ... 

2,217 

U.  S.  T.  Co.  trustee  for.... 

2, 217 

'US- 

2,  217 

N.  Y.  L.  I.  &  T.  Co.  trus¬ 
tee  for. 

2,  217 

for. 

2,  217 

F.  L.  &  T.  Co.  trustee  for. 

1,000 

.... 

2,  240 

Brewster,  Elmina  D . 

2,  240 

.... 

2, 540 

Brewster,  F.  F . 

2,  640 

.... 

2,  565 

Brewster,  G.  S . 

2, 565 

.... 

2, 540 

Brewster,  R.  S . 

2,  540 

•  •  -  • 

4, 000 

Brokaw,  estate  of  W.  Y . 

3,  395 

800 

Burke,  C.  C . 

980 

APPENDIX  B. — SHEET  3. — Schedule  showing  changes  in  the  'personnel  oj  the  owners  oj  the  stock  in  the  Standard  organization  at  various  pea  cods  Continued. 


1070 

1879 

1882 

1892 

1899 

Stockholders  of  Standard  Oil  Co.  of 
Ohio,  shortly  after  its  organization 
in  1870. 

Stockholders  of  Standard  Oil  Co.  of  Ohio  and 
various  corporations  who  signed  trust  agreement 
of  April  8,  1879. 

Stockholders  of  various  corporations 
who  signed  trust  agreement  of  Jan¬ 
uary  1, 1882. 

Trust-certificate  holders  who  liqui¬ 
dated  in  1892. 

Stockholders  who  exchanged  stock  of  the  20  com¬ 
panies  for  that  of  Standard  Oil  Co.  of  New  Jersey, 
in  1899-1900. 

Name.  (Number  of  shares  held  not 
given  in  record.) 

Name. 

Number  of 
shares. 

Name.  (Number  of  shares  held  not 
given  in  record.) 

Name.  (Number  of  shares  held  not 
given  in  record.) 

% 

Name. 

Number  of 
shares. 

I 

} 

new  names — continued. 

Jennings,  Esther. 

Jennings,  Helen. 

Jennings,  Oliver  G. 

Jennings,  Walter. 

Tilford,  Wesley  H. 

Total  number  of  trust  cer¬ 
tificates  liquidated  by  the 
above  named  17  persons, 
494,619  shares,  or  50.86  per 
cent,  of  the  total  number  of 
shares  outstanding  at  the  time 
of  dissolution. 

The  persons  who  held  the 
remaining  477,881  unliqui¬ 
dated  trust  certificates  num¬ 
bered  “  several  thousand.” 
(Vol.  16,  pp.  3189,  3203;  vol. 
17,  p.  3382.) 

Jennings,  Esther . 

James,  Helen  J . 

Jennings,  Oliver  G . 

Jennings,  Walter . 

Tilford,  Wesley  H . 

NEW  NAMES. 

Alexander,  J.  H . 

Anderson,  A . 

Bedford,  E.  T . 

Bemis,  W.  E . 

Bishop,  H.  R . 

Bonnell,  G.  B . 

Bonnell,  H.  H . 

Bostwick,  A.  C.: 

F.  L.  &  T.  Co.  trustee  for. . . 

Bostwick,  A.  C.,  and  others: 

U.  S.  T.  Co.  trustee  for _ 

Bostwick,  A.  F.: 

N.  Y.  L.  I.  &  T.  Co.  trus¬ 
tee  for. 

Bostwick,  Helen  C . 

Bostwick,  H.  C.,  and  others: 

U.  S.  T.  Co.  trustee  for... 
N.  Y.  L.  I.  &  T.  Co.  trus- 
tee  for. 

F.  L.  &  T.  Co.  trustee  for. 

Brewster,  Elmina  D . 

Brewster,  F.  F . 

Brewster,  G.  S . . . 

Brewster,  R.  S . 

Brokaw,  W.  Y . 

Burke,  C.  C . 

5,  470 

2,  366 

2,366 

2,  411 

5,  400 

700 

820 

2,  500 

500 

2,  600 

546 

60 

1,500 

1,  000 

500 

6,  048 

2,  217 
2,  217 

2,  217 

2,  240 

2,  540 

2, 565 

2,  540 

4, 000 

800 

72719—11.  (To  face  page  68.)  No.  3 


1907 


\mount  of  stock  in  Standard  Oil  Co.  of  New  Jersey 
‘  held  on  August  19,  1907,  by  the  persons  named  m 


Name. 


Number  of 
shares. 


Jennings,  Esther.  . 
James,  Helen  J.... 
Jennings,  Oliver  G 
Jennings,  Walter.. 
Tilford,  Wesley  H. 


5,  500 
2,  373 
2,  300 
2,  550 

6,  000 


Alexander,  J.  H 


700 


Bedford,  E.  T . 

Bemis,  W.  E . 

Bishop,  trustees  estate  of  H.  It. 


3,300 
615 
1,  598 


Bonnell,  H.  H . . . 

Bostwick,  A.  C.: 

F.  L.  &  T.  Co.  trustee  for. . 


Bostwick,  A.  C.: 

U.  S.  T.  Co.  trustee  for - 


Bostwick,  A.  F.: 

N.  Y.  L.  I.  &  T.  Co.  trus¬ 
tee  for. 


Bostwick,  Helen  C . 

Bostwick,  H.  C.,  and  others: 

U.  S.  T.  Co.  trustee  for _ 

N.  Y.  L.  I.  &  T.  Co.  trus¬ 
tee  for. 

F.  L.  &  T.  Co.  trustee  for. 


Brewster,  Elmina  D . . . 

Brewster,  F.  F . 

Brewster,  G.  S . 

Brewster,  R.  S . 

Brokaw,  estate  of  W.  Y 
Burke,  C.  C . 


576 

1,  500 

2,  217 
500 

6, 048 

2,  217 
2,  217 

1,000 

2,  240 

2,  640 

2,  565 

2,  540 

3,  395 
980 


A  ton  at  various  'periods — Continued . 


1870 

Stockholders  of  Standard 
Ohio,  shortly  after  its 
in  1870. 

)ck  of  the  20  com- 
Co.  of  New  Jersey, 

Name.  (Number  of  shar 
given  in  recorc 

. 

Number  of 
shares. 

i. 

,rus- 

1,  500 

for. . 

1,  000 

. 

500 

. 

992 

. 

500 

. 

200 

. 

3, 100 

. 

20 

. 

240 

80 

2, 250 

. 

1,  000 

50 

25 

;rus- 

100 

1, 000 

13, 077 

14, 000 

1, 195 

100 

1, 300 

25 

650 

6,000 

411 

11,775 

400 

72719 

1907' 


Amount  of  stock  in  Standard  Oil  Co.  of  New  Jersey 
held  on  August  19,  1907,  by  the  persons  named  in 
the  preceding  columns. 


Name. 


Number  of 
shares. 


Carstairs,  F.  Bostwick: 


N.  Y.  L.  I.  &  T.  Co.  trus- 
too  for 

F.  L.  &  T.  Co.  trustee  for. . 

Carter,  John  J . 

Chapin,  C.  M . 

Cochran,  trustees  will  of  W.  F. 
Conley,  E.  W . 


1,  500 
1, 000 
300 
2, 184 
83 
200 


Dean,  Josephine  W 
Donald,  Jessie  E.  . 


240 

80 


Folger,  H.  C.,  jr . 

Forbes,  D . 

Forbes,  Annie  H . 

Ford,  C.  R.: 

N.  Y.  L.  I.  &  T.  Co.  trus¬ 
tee  for. 

Griscom,  C.  A . 

Harkness,  L.  Y . 

Harkness,  W.  L . 

Higgins,  C.  M . 

Hogg,  Annie  D . 

Hogg,  Chas.  B . 


2, 145 
50 
25 

106 

3, 000 
13, 100 
14, 000 
2, 130 
130 
1,225 


Hogg,  Robt . 

Hollister  &  Babcock . 

Houston,  estate  of  Anna  J 
Houston,  estate  of  H.  H.. 
Hunt,  Helen  J . 


525 

5 

381 

11,775 

401 


APPENDIX  B. — SHEET  4.— 


■Schedule  showing  changes  in  the  personnel  of  the  owners  oj  the  stock  in  the  Stand, ard  organization  at  various  periods — Continued. 


1870 

1879 

1882 

1892 

1899 

190?' 

Stockholders  of  Standard  Oil  Co.  of 
Ohio,  shortly  after  its  organization 
in  1870. 

Stockholders  of  Standard  Oil  Co.  of  Ohio  and 
^lC8°%rati0nS  W^°  S^ne(^  trust  agreement 

- - - - - - - 

Stockholders  of  various  corporations 
who  signed  trust  agreement  of  Jan¬ 
uary  1,  1882. 

Trust-certificate  holders  who  liqui¬ 
dated  in  1892. 

Stockholders  who  exchanged  stock  of  the  20  com¬ 
panies  for  that  of  Standard  Oil  Co.  of  New  Jersey, 
in  1899-1900. 

Amount  of  stock  in  Standard  Oil  Co.  of  New  Jersey 
held  on  August  19,  1907,  by  the  persons  named  in 
the  preceding  columns. 

Name.  (Number  of  shares  held  not 
given  in  record.) 

Name. 

Number  of 
shares. 

Name.  (Number  of  shares  held  not 
given  in  record.) 

Name.  (Number  of  shares  held  not 
given  in  record.) 

Name. 

Number  of 
shares. 

Name. 

Number  of 
shares. 

new  names — continued. 

Carstairs,  F.  Bostwick: 

Carstairs,  F.  Bostwick: 

N.  Y.  L.  I.  &  T.  Co.  trus- 

1,  500 

N.  Y.  L.  I.  &  T.  Co.  trus- 

1,  500 

tee  for. 

tee  for. 

F.  L.  &  T.  Co.  trustee  for. . 

1,000 

F.  L.  &  T.  Co.  trustee  for. . 

1,  000 

Carter,  John  J . 

500 

Carter,  John  J . 

300 

Chapin,  C.  M . 

992 

Chapin,  C.  M . 

2, 184 

Cochran,  W.  F . 

500 

Cochran,  trustees  will  of  W.  F. 

83 

Conley,  E.  W . 

200 

Conley,  E.  W . 

200 

Constable,  J.  M . 

3, 100 

Darling,  Robt . 

20 

Dean,  Josephine  W . 

240 

Dean,  Josephine  W. . . 

240 

Donald,  Jessie  E . 

80 

Donald,  Jessie  E.  . . 

80 

Fiske,  Martha  F . 

2,  250 

Folger,  H.  C.,  jr . 

1,  000 

Folger,  H.  C.,  ir 

2  145 

Forbes,  D . . . 

50 

Forbes,  D.. 

50 

Forbes,  Annie  H . 

25 

Forbes  Annie  H 

25 

Ford,  C.  R.: 

Ford,  C.  R.: 

N.  Y.  L.  I.  &  T.  Co.  trus- 

100 

N.  Y.  L.  I.  &  T.  Co.  trus- 

106 

tee  for. 

tee  for. 

Griscom,  C.  A . 

1, 000 

Griscom.  C.  A 

3  non 

Harkness,  L.  V . 

13, 077 

Harkness.  L  V 

Oj  U\JU 

iq  ion 

Harkness,  W.  L . 

14,000 

Harkness  W  L 

XO, IUU 

14  non 

Higgins,  C.  M . 

1,195 

Higgins  C  M 

XX,  uuu 

9  1 qh 

Hogg,  Annie  D . 

100 

Hogg,  Annie  D 

i  an 

Hogg,  Chas.  B . 

1,  300 

Hogg.  Chas  B 

loU 

1,225 

Hogg,  Katharine . 

25 

Hogg,  Robt . 

650 

Hogg  Robt 

Hollister  &  Babcock . 

6, 000 

Hollister  &  Babcock 

oZo 

Houston,  Anna  I . 

411 

Houston,  estate  of  Anna  J . 

0 

381 

. 

Houston,  estate  of  H.  H . 

11,775 

Houston,  estate  of  H.  H.. 

11, 775 

■ 

Hunt,  Helen  J . 

400 

Hunt,  Helen  J . 

401 

72719 — 11.  (To  face  page  68.)  No.  4 


APPI  ion  at  various  periods — Continued. 


1370 


Stockholders  of  Standard  Oi 
Ohio,  shortly  after  its  orgaJ 
in  1870. 


ock  of  the  20  com- 
Co.  of  New  Jersey, 


Name.  (Number  of  shared  h 
given  in  record.) 


72719— 


ee 


Number  of 
shares. 


500 
2,540 
400 
1,092 
1, 000 
3, 000 
2, 076 
350 
942 

1,374  | 
500 
4,340 
1,000 
7,480 
1,300  | 
100 
1,000 
1,760 
4,000 
996 
400 
100 
225 
95 

1, 000 
1,000 
5,  341 
500 
614 


1907 


Amount  of  stock  in  Standard  Oil  Co.  of  New  Jersey 
held  on  August  19,  1907,  by  the  persons  named  in 
the  preceding  columns. 


Name. 


Jennings,  F.  B . 

Jennings,  Mary  B . 

Jewett,  W.  K . 

Kennedy,  John  S . 

Ladd,  Kate . 

Ladd,  W.  G . 

Lloyd,  Malcolm . 

McAlpin,  estate  of  D.  H . 

McCullough,  J.  G . 

McDonald,  Alexander . 

McKinney,  Agnes  E . 

Macy,  V.  E . 

Mills,  D.  O . 

Moffat,  Lizzie  D . 

N.  Y.  L.  I.  &  T.  Co.,  trustee 

O’ Day,  estate  of  Daniel . 

Pratt  &  Co.,  Chas . 

Robbins,  Sarah  J . 

Scheide,  W.  T . 

Seep,  Joseph . 

Severance,  L.  H . 


Number  of 
shares. 


400 
2,  600 
400 


3,  000 
2,076 
350 
942 
1, 400 
500 
3, 374 
900 
7,300 
721 
100 
963 
2,  655 
1,312 

400 


1,000 

600 

7,440 


*■  . 


APPENDIX  B.  SHEET  5.  Schedule  showing  changes  in  the  'personnel  oj  the  owners  oj  the  stock  in  the  Standard  organization  at  various  periods — Continued. 


* 


.  * 

>  * 


xsvo 


Stockholders  of  Standard  Oil  Co.  of 
Ohio,  shortly  after  its  organization 
in  1870. 


Name.  (Number  of  shares  held  not 
given  in  record.) 


1879 

1883 

1893 

1899 

Stockholders  of  Standard  Oil  Co.  of  Ohio  and 
various  corporations  who  signed  trust  agreement 
of  April  8,  1879. 

Stockholders  of  various  corporations 
who  signed  trust  agreement  of  Jan¬ 
uary  1,  1882. 

Trust-certificate  holders  who  liqui¬ 
dated  in  1892. 

Stockholders  who  exchanged  stock  of  the  20  com¬ 
panies  for  that  of  Standard  Oil  Co.  of  New  Jersey, 
in  1899-1900. 

Name. 

Number  of 
shares. 

Name.  (Number  of  shares  held  not 
given  in  record.) 

Name.  (Number  of  shares  held  not 
given  in  record.) 

Name. 

Number  of 
shares. 

new  names — continued. 

Jennings,  F.  B . 

500 

Jennings,  Mary  B . 

2,540 

Jewett,  W.  K . 

400 

Jones,  Salome  M . 

1,092 

Kenan,  Mary  L . 

1,000 

Kennedy,  John  S . 

3,000 

Ladd,  Kate  M . 

2, 076 

Ladd,  W.  G . 

350 

Lloyd,  Malcolm . 

942 

• 

McAlpin,  D.  H . 

1,374 

McCullough,  J.  G . 

500  i 

McDonald,  Alexander . 

4,340 

McKinney,  Agnes  E . 

1,000 

Macy,  Y.  E . 

7,480 

Mills,  D.  O . 

1,300 

Moffat,  Lizzie  D . 

100 

N.  Y.  L.  I.  &  T.  Co.,  trustee. . 

1,000 

O’ Day,  Daniel . 

1,760 

1 

- 

Pratt  &  Co.,  Clias . 

4,000 

Preston,  Elizabeth  T . 

996 

Robbins,  Sarah  J . 

400 

Robins,  F.  F . 

100 

Sandford,  J.  W . 

225 

Sandford,  W.  M . 

95 

Scheide,  W.  T . 

1,000 

Seep,  Joseph . 

1,000 

Severance,  L.  H . 

j 

5, 341 

Smith,  G.  W . 

500 

Sterling,  C.  A . 

614  ! 

1907 


Amount  of  stock  in  Standard  Oil  Co.  of  New  Jersey 
held  on  August  19,  1907,  by  the  persons  named  in 
the  preceding  columns. 


Name. 


Number  of 
shares. 


Jennings,  F.  B.  . . 
Jennings,  Mary  B 
Jewett,  W.  K.  . . . 


400 
2,  600 
400 


Kennedy,  John  S . 

Ladd,  Kate . 

Ladd,  W.  G . 

Lloyd,  Malcolm . 

McAlpin,  estate  of  D.  H . 

McCullough,  J.  G . 

McDonald,  Alexander . 

McKinney,  Agnes  E . 

Macy,  Y.  E . 

Mills,  D.  O . 

Moffat,  Lizzie  D . 

N.  Y.  L.  I.  &  T.  Co.,  trustee. . 

O’Day,  estate  of  Daniel . 

Pratt  &  Co.,  Clias . 


3, 000 
2,076 
350 
942 
1, 400 
500 
3,  374 
900 
7,300 
721 
100 
963 
2,  655 
1,  312 


Robbins,  Sarah  J 


400 


Scheide,  W.  T.. 
Seep,  Joseph. . . . 
Severance,  L.  H 


1,000 

600 

7,440 


72719 — 11.  (To  face  page  68.)  No.  5 


appen: 

i  at  various  periods — Continued. 

1870 

1907 

Stockholders  of  Standard  Oil  Co 
Ohio,  shortly  after  its  organiza 
in  1870. 

.  of  the  20  com- 
.  of  New  Jersey, 

Amount  of  stock  in  Standard  Oil  Co.  of  New  Jersey 
held  on  August  19,  1907,  by  the  persons  named  in 
the  preceding  columns. 

Name.  (Number  of  shares  held 
given  in  record.) 

N umber  of 
shares. 

Name. 

Number  of 
shares. 

850 

Stillman,  James . 

78 

1,000 

1, 396 

1, 113 

Thompson,  L.  S . 

2,725 

600 

Tilford,  Catharine  N . 

600 

2, 478 

Usmar,  J.  H . 

2,578 

200 

Vaillant,  Maria  I . 

200 

50 

Welling,  C.  E . 

50 

350 

Wheeler,  T.  H . 

1, 375 

1, 500 

Willets,  Howard . 

890 

648 

Wood,  Howard . 

648 

1. 

i  •  • 

185, 943 

i  •  • 

80,  680 

Total  number  shares. . .  10, 

Total  stock  outstanding . 

983, 383 

►  •  « 

972, 492 

Total  number  of  stockhoh 

Is 

Approximate  number  of  stock- 

of  Standard  Oil  Co.  of  Obi 

£ 

holders, . 

5, 150 

;h 

w 

... 

112 

Number  of  stockholders  in  list 

above, . 

96 

Number  of  shares  held  by 

stockholders  listed  above, . . . 

647, 640 

Percentage  of  outstanding 

stock  held  by  holders  listed 

' 

above, . 

65.  8% 

References:  Rockefeller, 

X- 

Reference:  Defendant’s  Ex- 

16,  pp.  3054,  3055,  3062. 

7, 

hibit  1. 

72719—11. 

APPENDIX  B. — SHEET  6. — Schedule  showing  changes  in  the  'personnel  oj  the  owners  oj  the  stock  in  the  Standard  organization  at  various  periods  Continued. 


1870 


Stockholders  of  Standard  Oil  Co.  of 
Ohio,  shortly  after  its  organization 
in  1870. 


Name.  (Number  of  shares  held  not 
given  in  record.) 


Total  number  shares. . .  10,  000 


Total  number  of  stockholders 
of  Standard  Oil  Co.  of  Ohio,  9. 


References:  Rockefeller,  vol. 
16,  pp.  3054,  3055,  3062. 


1879 

1882 

Stockholders  of  Standard  Oil  Co.  of  Ohio  and 
various  corporations  who  signed  trust  agreement 
of  April  8, 1879. 

Stockholders  of  various  corporations 
who  signed  trust  agreement  of  Jan¬ 
uary  1,  1882. 

Name. 

N  umber  of 
shares. 

Name.  (Number  of  shares  held  not 
given  in  record.) 

: 

- 

Total  number  shares . 

35,  000 

Total  number  shares.  700,000 

Total  number  of  persons  whose 
stocks  or  interests  were 
placed  in  the  trust  of  1879,. . 

37 

Total  number  of  persons  whose 
stocks  or  interests  were 
placed  in  the  trust  of  1882,  42. 

References:  Defendant’s  Ex¬ 
hibit  257;  Rockefeller,  vol.  16, 
pp.  3097,  3098. 

References:  Trust  agree¬ 

ment  of  1882,  Record,  vol.  A, 
pp.  21-31;  admitted,  ans.,  vol. 
A,  p.  480. 

1893 

1899 

Trust-certificate  holders  who  liqui¬ 
dated  in  1892. 

Stockholders  who  exchanged  stock  of  the  20  com¬ 
panies  for  that  of  Standard  Oil  Co.  of  New  Jersey, 
in  1899-1900. 

Name.  (Number  of  shares  held  not 
given  in  record.) 

Name. 

N umber  of 
shares. 

new  names — continued. 

Stillman,  James . 

850 

Stone,  Chas . 

1,000 

Thompson,  estate  of  M.  E . 

1, 396 

Thompson,  L.  S . 

1, 113 

Tilford,  Catharine  H . 

600 

Usmar,  J.  H . 

2,478 

Vaillant,  Maria  I . 

200 

Welling,  C.  E . 

50 

Wheeler,  T.  H . 

350 

Willets,  Howard . 

1,  500 

Wood,  Howard . 

Exchange  stock  (see  brief,  vol. 

1,  pp.  58-60): 

648 

By  J.  D.  Rockefeller . 

185, 943 

By  H.  M.  Flagler . 

80, 680 

Total  number  trust  certifi- 

Total  number  shares  ex- 

co+pf3  . 972  500 

changed, . - . 

972,  492 

Total  number  of  trust  certifi- 

Total  number  of  individuals 

cate  holders,  “several  thou- 

listed  above  who  exchanged 

sand.” 

their  stock  directly  with 
the  Standard  Oil  Co.  of  New 

Jersey, . 

1 

112 

References:  Tilford,  vol.  1, 

References:  Defendant’s  Ex- 

p.  136;  Fay,  vol.  2,  p.  604; 

hibit  388;  stipulation,  vol.  17, 

Rockefeller,  vol.  16,  p.  3189, 
3203;  Archbold,  vol.  17,  p. 
3382;  Petitioner’s  Exhibit  256. 

p.  3665. 

1907 


Amount  of  stock  in  Standard  Oil  Co.  of  New  Jersey 
held  on  August  19,  1907,  by  the  persons  named  m 
the  preceding  columns. 


Name. 

N umber  of 
shares. 

Stillman,  James . 

78 

Thompson,  L.  S . 

2,725 

Tilford,  Catharine  N . 

600 

Usmar,  J.  H . 

2,  578 

Vaillant,  Maria  I . 

200 

Welling,  C.  E . 

50 

Wheeler,  T.  H . 

1,375 

Willets,  Howard . 

890 

Wood,  Howard . 

648 

Total  stock  outstanding . 

983,  383 

Approximate  number  of  stock- 

holders, . 

5,150 

Number  of  stockholders  in  list 

above, . 

96 

Number  of  shares  held  by 

stockholders  listed  above, _ 

647,  640 

Percentage  of  outstanding 

stock  held  by  holders  listed 

above, . 

65.8% 

Reference:  Defendant’s  Ex- 

hibit  1. 

72719—11.  (To  face  page  68.)  No.  6 


1 ompany  of  Ohio  in  1870. 


(D 

Year. 

1871-72 


1873 


1874 


(6) 

!  were  thereafter  oper- 
r  dismantled. 


Clark,  I. 

Alexanc 
Westlak' 
!  Clark,  !: 
Hanna, 
Doane  < 
Stewart’ 
Critchlc 
Case  & 
Short, 
Harmor 
Joseph 
Braineif 
F.  Q. 
Kellogg 
Henry 


A.  M.  1 


Long  If. 


Chess-d" 


Charles' 


Devoe 


Imperi 


Standa 


72 


mantled;  market- 
;ss  continued. 


1901-02. 


(7) 

References. 


16:3064,  3138,  3160,  3161.  (See  brief,  vol. 
l,p.  22.) 

16:3064,3138,3159,3161;  6:2625. 
16:3138,3159,3161;  6:2626. 
16:3138,3159,3161;  6:2625. 
16:3138,3159,3161;  6:2626. 

6:2625;  16:3138. 

16:3138,3159;  6:2626. 

16:3138,3159;  6:2625. 

6:2626;  16:3138. 

16:3138,3159;  6:2626. 

16:3138,3159;  6:2626. 

16:3138,3159;  6:2625. 

16:3138,3159;  6:2626. 

16:3138,3159;  6:2626. 

16:3138,3160;  6:2626. 

16:3138,3160;  6:2626. 

16:3138,  3160. 


{ 


16:3075,  3172;  19:618,  821.  (See  brief, 
vol.  1,  p.  23.) 


16:3077,  3163;  17:3270,  3359;  19:677,  759, 
760.  (See  brief,  vol.  1,  p.  28.) 


{ 


16:3079,  3081,  3151,  3167;  17:3264;  19  :618, 
674,  742.  (See  brief,  vol.  1,  p.  24.) 


{ 


16:3076,  3161;  17:3275;  19:618,  679,  792, 
(See  brief,  vol.  1,  p.  23.) 

16:3077-79,  3163;  17:3263,  3353;  19:673, 
735,  739.  (See  brief,  vol.  1,  p.  25.) 


{ 


6:2630;  16:3080,  3168;  17:3264;  19:618, 
675,  747.  (See  brief,  vol.  1,  p.  24.) 


APPENDIX  C.— SHEET  1. 


7  artial  list  o  f  concerns  combined  with  or  acquired  by  Standard  Oil  interests  since  the  organization  of  the  Standard  Oil  Company  oj  Ohio  in  1870. 


(i) 

Year. 


1871-72 


1873 


1874 


(2) 

Name. 


Alexander  Scofield  &  Co. 
Westlake,  Hutchins  &  Co. 

Clark,  Shurmer  &  Co _ 

Hanna,  Baslington  &  Co.. 

Doane  &  Co . 

Stewart  &  Arter . 

Critchley,  Fawcett  &  Co. 

Case  &  Reynolds . 

Short,  Neill  &  Co . 

Harmon,  Borne  &  Co . 

Joseph  Stanley . 

Brainerd,  Barkwell  &  Co. 

F.  Q.  Barstow  &  Co . 

Kellogg,  Goodwillie  &  Co. 

Henry  C.  Smith . 

A.  M.  Burk . 


Long  Island  Refining  Co. 


Chess-Carley  Co. 


Charles  Pratt  &  Co. 


Devoe  Manufacturing  Co. 


Imperial  Refining  Co 


(3) 


Property  and  business  acquired. 


Clark,  Payne  &  Co. 


Refinery  at  Cleveland 


.do 

.do. 

.do. 

.do. 

.do. 

.do. 

.do. 

.do. 

.do. 

.do. 

.do. 

.do. 

.do. 

.do. 

.do. 

.do. 


Large  refinery  and  docks  at  Long  Island 
City,  N.  Y. 


Refinery  at  Louisville,  Ky.,  and  large 
marketing  business  throughout  South¬ 
ern  States.  Also  owned  20  per  cent 
of  stock  of  Waters-Pierce  Oil  Co. 


[Large  refinery  and  docks  at  New  York 
\  Harbor. 

Large  refinery  on  Long  Island,  N.  Y.,  and 
canning  oil  for  export. 

[Cornwell  refinery  at  Oil  City,  Pa . 

I  Stonewell  Lubricating  Oil  Works,  Oil 
l  City,  Pa. 


Standard  Oil  Co.  of  Pittsburg. . 

72719—11.  (To  face  page  68.)  No.  7 


(National  refinery,  Pittsburg,  weekly  ca¬ 
pacity  5,538  barrels. 

Standard  refinery,  Pittsburg,  weekly  ca¬ 
pacity  7,250  barrels. 


(4) 

Manner  of  combination  or  acquisition,  whether  ac¬ 
quired  in  whole  or  in  part,  and  amount  paid 
therefor. 


Property;  largely  in  exchange  for  S.  0. 
Co.  stock. 


Property;  probably  for  cash. 

_ do . 

_ do . 

- do . 

_ do . 


(5) 

Former  owners  of  property  who  there¬ 
upon  received  stock  in  Standard 
organization. 


f Oliver  H.  Payne. 
[John  Huntington. 


H.  A.  Hutchins  (?). 


.do. 

.do. 

.do. 

.do. 

.do. 

.do. 

.do. 

.do. 

.do. 

.do. 

.do. 


Entire  stock;  exchanged  for  stock  of 
S.  0.  Co. 


Acquired  one-half  interest  in  1873  and 
balance  in  1886. 


Entire  stock;  in  exchange  for  S.  0.  Co. 
stock. 


At  first  half,  and  later  all  the  stock;  in  ex¬ 
change  for  S.  0.  Co.  stock. 


Property;  in  exchange  for  S.  0.  Co.  stock. 


(Entire  stock;  in  exchange  for  S.  0.  Co. 
stock. 


F.  A.  Arter  (?). 


'Josiah  Macy,  jr. 

W.  H.  Macy . 

W.  H.  Macy,  jr. . 
W.  T.  Wardwell. 


Charles  Pratt. 
C.  M.  Pratt... 
H.  H.  Rogers. 
H.  A.  Pratt. . 


Josiah  Macy  and  other  Macys. 


fj.  J.  Vandergrift. 
(John  Pitcairn.... 


Wm.  G.  Warden.. 
Charles  Lockhart. 
Major  Frew . . 


(#) 

Whether  plants  were  thereafter  oper¬ 
ated  or  dismantled. 


jOperated 


. do . 

. do . 

. do . 

_ do . 

Dismantled 

_ do . 

_ do . 

_ do . . 

_ do . . 

_ do . . 

_ do . . 

_ do . 

_ do . 

_ do . 

_ do . 

_ do . 


Operated . 


Refinery  dismantled;  market¬ 
ing  business  continued. 


(7) 

References. 


Operated . 


do 


|l)ismantled,  1901-02. 


16:3064,  3138,  3160,  3161.  (See  brief,  vol. 
l,p.  22.) 

16:3064,3138,3159,3161;  6:2625. 
16:3138,3159,3161;  6:2626. 
16:3138,3159,3161;  6:2625. 
16:3138,3159,3161;  6:2626. 

6:2625;  16:3138. 

16:3138,3159;  6:2626. 

16:3138,3159;  6:2625. 

6:2626;  16:3138. 

16:3138,3159;  6:2626. 

16:3138,3159;  6:2626. 

16:3138,3159;  6:2625. 

16:3138,3159;  6:2626. 

16:3138,3159;  6:2626. 

16:3138,3160;  6:2626. 

16:3138,3160;  6:2626. 

16:3138,  3160. 


16:3075,  3172;  19:618,  821.  (See  brief, 
vol.  1,  p.  23.) 


16:3077,  3163;  17:3270,  3359;  19:677,  759, 
760.  (See  brief,  vol.  1,  p.  28.) 


Operated . 


116:3079,  3081,  3151,  3167;  17:3264;  19  :618, 
l  674,  742.  (See  brief,  vol.  1,  p.  24.) 


16:3076,  3161;  17:3275;  19:618,  679,  792, 
(See  brief,  vol.  1,  p.  23.) 

[16:3077-79,  3163;  17:3263,  3353;  19:673, 
l  735,  739.  (See  brief,  vol.  1,  p.  25.) 


[6:2630;  16:3080,3168;  17:3264;  19:618, 
\  675,  747.  (See  brief,  vol.  1,  p.  24.) 


APPENDD  ard  Oil  Company  of  Ohio  in  1870 — Continued. 


(i) 

Year. 


1874 


1875 


1876 


1877 


(6) 

s  were  thereafter  oper- 
r  dismantled. 


Model  ('C 


Lockha 


Warder 


Atlanti 


Americ 


United 


J.  N.  C 


Bennetntil  destroyed  by 
,1883;  not  rebuilt. 

Porter, 


R.  H. 
John  Js 
Easter 
Octave 


flnmfoidtil  destroyed  by 
bersJ1883;  not  rebuilt. 


Centra 


Carter, 


Kidde 


72 


(7) 

References. 


6:2630;  16:3081;  19:618,  815. 


'6:2630,  2631;  16:3080,  3082.  (See  brief, 
k  vol.  1,  p.  24.) 


16:3081,  3165;  19:618.  (See  brief,  vol.  1, 
p.  24.) 


16:3080,  3165;  17:3263;  19:618,  673,  734, 
737.  (See  brief,  vol.  1,  p.  24.) 


16:3093,  3175,  3223;  19:618;  vol.  A:18, 
479.  (See  brief,  vol.  1,  p.  26.) 

16:3093,  3223,  3320, 3326;  19:618,  816,  820. 
(See  brief,  vol.  1,  p.  25.) 


A6:3091,  3174;  17:3263;  19:618,  673,  727. 
(See  brief,  vol.  1,  p.  25.) 


6 : 2627;  16 : 3083,  3168; 17 : 3342; 19 : 673, 719, 
720.  (See  brief,  vol.  1,  p.  24.) 


6:2627,  3240;  17:3342. 

6:2627,  3240;  17:3342. 

6:2627,  3240;  17:3342. 

6:2627,  3240;  17:3342. 

6:2627,  3240;  17:3271,  3361;  19:678,  769, 
770.  (See  brief,  vol.  1,  p.  26.) 


■6:2630;  17:3269;  19:618,  677,  757. 


17:3272,  3357,  3363;  19:618,  678,  773.  (See 
brief,  vol.  1,  p.  29.) 


17:3268, 3357, 3363; 19:676,  678,  756.  (See 
brief,  vol.  1,  p.  29.) 


APPENDIX  C.— — SHEET  2.  Partial  list  of  concerns  combined  with  or  acquired  by  Standard  Oil  interests  since  the  organization  of  the  Standard  Oil  Company  of  Ohio  in  1870  Continued. 


(i) 

Year. 


1874 


1875 


1876 


1877 


(2) 

Name. 


Model  Oil  Co. 


(3) 


Property  and  business  acquired. 


Lockhart  &  Frew. 


/Refinery  at  Pittsburg,  weekly  capacity 
l  3,233  barrels.  ■ 

Nonpariel  refinery  at  Pittsburg,  weekly 
capacity  1,318  barrels. 

Brilliant  refinery  at  Pittsburg . . 


Warden,  Frew  &  Co. 


Atlantic  Refinery  Co. 


American  Transfer  Co. 


United  Pipe  Lines. 


J.  N.  Camden  &  Co. 


Bennett,  Warner  &  Co. 
Porter,  Moreland  &  Co. 


R.  H.  Lee  [Donahue  &  Lee  ?]. 

John  Jackson... . 

Easterly  &  Davis . 

Octave  Oil  Co . 


Comfort,  Pickering  &  Cham¬ 
bers. 


Refineries,  docks,  and  canning  works,  and 
export  jobbing  business,  at  Philadel¬ 
phia. 


Refinery  at  Philadelphia,  and  marketing. . 


/Large  system  of  pipe  lines  in  western 
\  Pennsylvania  oil  regions. 

/Large  system  of  pipe  lines  in  western 
f  Pennsylvania  oil  fields. 

'Camden  refinery  at  Parkersburg,  W.  Va. 

Pool  refinery  at  Parkersburg,  W.  Ya _ 

Camden  refinery  at  Baltimore . 


Refinery  at  Titusville . 

Large  refinery  at  Titusville. 

Refinery  at  Titusville,  Pa.. 
_ do . 


.do. 

do. 

.do. 


Central  Refining  Co. 


Carter,  Windsor  &  Co. 


(Central  refinery  at  Pittsburg,  weekly 
capacity  21,867  barrels. 

Peerless  refinery  at  Pittsburg,  weekly 
capacity  3,758  barrels. 

Refinery  at  Boston,  and  marketing  in 
New  England  States. 


(4) 

Manner  of  combination  or  acquisition;  whether  ac¬ 
quired  in  whole  or  in  part,  and  amount  paid 
therefor. 


Entire  stock;  in  exchange  for  S.  0.  Co. 
stock. 


►Property;  in  exchange  for  S.  0.  Co.  stock. 


Property  and  business;  in  exchange  for 
S.  0.  Co.  stock. 


/Entire  stock;  in  exchange  for  S.  0.  Co. 
\  stock. 


...  do 


Entire  stock,  ultimately;  partly  in  ex¬ 
change  for  S.  0.  Co.  stock. 

Property  acquired  in  exchange  for  S.  0. 
Co.  stock;  Camden  Consolidated  Oil 
Co.,  organized  to  take  and  carry  on  the 
business. 

Acme  Oil  Co.  organized  to  take  over  these 
properties;  and  certain  of  the  former 
owners  retained  a  minority  stock  inter¬ 
est,  while  Archbold  exchanged  his  in¬ 
terest  for  S.  O.  Co.  stock. 


(5) 

Former  owners  of  property  who  there¬ 
upon  received  stock  in  Standard 
organization. 


fWm.  G.  Warden. 

<  Charles  Lockhart. 
[Major  Frew . 


’Win.  G.  Warden. 
Chas.  Lockhart.. 
Major  Frew . 


Wm.  G.  Warden. 
Chas.  Lockhart.. 
Major  Frew . 


Wm.  G.  Warden.. 
Chas.  Lockhart... 

Major  Frew . 

H.  H.  Houston(?). 


/J.  A.  Bostwick . 

[Daniel  O’Day  (later). 

J.  J.  Vandergrift . 


Leased,  then  purchased. 

Property  purchased . 

_ do . 


Stock  or  property  purchased. 


Major  interest  in  property  purchased; 
Keystone  Refining  Co.  organized  and 
took  over  property,  of  which  former 
owners  received  minority  of  stock;  in 
1882  minority  stock  acquired  in  ex¬ 
change  for  trust  certificates. 

•Entire  stock  purchased  in  1877  and  1882.. 


Kidder,  Vaughn  &  Co. 


.do. 


Property  purchased;  Maverick  Oil  Co.  or¬ 
ganized  and  took  over  property.  Former 
owners  for  short  time  held  minority 
stock. 

Property  purchased  by  Maverick  Oil  Co. 
(owned  by  Standard)  and  later  trans¬ 
ferred  to  Beacon  Oil  Co.;  former  own¬ 
ers  for  a  time  held  minority  stock  of 
Maverick  Oil  Co. 


J.  N.  Camden _ 

W.  P.  Thompson. 


John  D.  Archbold 


(6) 

Whether  plants  were  thereafter  oper¬ 
ated  or  dismantled. 


(No  evidence). 


.do 


.do 


Operated . 

| _ do  . . 

. do 


(7) 

References. 


6:2630;  16:3081;  19:618,  815. 


{ 


6:2630,  2631;  16:3080,  3082.  (See  brief, 
vol.  1,  p.  24.) 


{ 


16:3081,  3165;  19:618.  (See  brief,  vol.  1, 
p.  24.) 


.do 

.do 

.do 


/Operated  until  destroyed  by 
1  fire,  about  1883;  not  rebuilt. 


Dismantled. 
_ do . 


do. 

.do. 


Operated  until  destroyed  by 
fire  about  1883;  not  rebuilt. 


Dismantled. 
_ do . 


do. 


do. 


16:3080,  3165;  17:3263;  19:618,  673,  734, 
737.  (See  brief,  vol.  1,  p.  24.) 


16:3093,  3175,  3223;  19:618;  vol.  A:18, 
479.  (See  brief,  vol.  1,  p.  26.) 

16:3093,  3223,  3320,  3326;  19:618,  816,  820. 
(See  brief,  vol.  1,  p.  25.) 


16:3091,  3174;  17:3263;  19:618,  673,  727. 
(See  brief,  vol.  1,  p.  25.) 


6 : 2627 ;  16 : 3083,  3168 ; 17 : 3342 ; 19 : 673, 719, 
720.  (See  brief,  vol.  1,  p.  24.) 


6:2627,  3240;  17:3342. 

6:2627,  3240;  17:3342. 

6:2627,  3240;  17:3342. 

6:2627,  3240;  17:3342. 

6:2627,  3240;  17:3271,  3361;  19:678,  769, 
770.  (See  brief,  vol.  1,  p.  26.) 


6:2630;  17:3269;  19:618,  677,  757. 


17:3272,  3357,  3363; 19:618,  678,  773.  (See 
brief,  vol.  1,  p.  29.) 


17:3268, 3357, 3363; 19:676,  678,  756.  (See 
brief,  vol.  1,  p.  29.) 


72719—11.  (To  face  page  68.)  No.  8 


APPENDIX 


rd  Oil  Company  of  Ohio  in  1870 — Continued. 


(i) 

Year. 


1877 


(6) 

Arere  thereafter  oper- 
lismantled. 


Sone  &  FI 
Philadelpl 
Empire  Tr 


) 


)■ 


Producers 
and  Peti 


C.  West  & 

Merritt,  Jo 
J .  Parkhuri 
Sylvia  C.  1 

some;  consol  i- 

James  C.  Operated  others. 

Robert  Re' 

Harry  Ree 

George  Ha: 

D.  Hostett 


Columbia  (jmduit  line  orU. 

el  line  was  taken 


Antwerp  P 

Oil  City  Pi. 

Clarion  Pip 

Sandy  Pip<. 

Milton  Pipi. 

Keystone  I 

Karns  Pipe 

Hunter  &  C. 

Pennsvlvar 
Co.  * 

Union  Pipe, 

Grant  Pipe 

Relief  Pipe 

Citizens  Oi 

72719 — 


with  U.  P.  L. 


(7) 

References. 


16:3085,  3173;  17:3264;  19:618,  675,  747. 

(See  brief,  vol.  1,  p.  32.) 

16:3086,  3174;  19:618,  747. 

16:3085-3088. 


16:3213;  17:3273,  3364;  19:618,  679,  774. 
(See  brief,  vol.  1,  p.  33.) 


5 : 2203-2204 ;  16  : 3175 ;  17 : 3267,  3355,  3358 ; 
19:618,  676,  752,  754.  (See  brief,  vol. 
1,  p.  27.) 


6:2630. 


6:2648,  3015,  3119,  3322,  3327;  16:3095; 
19:618. 


6:2649,  3015,  3321,  3322,  3327;  17:3329, 
3330. 


6:2630,3022. 


APPENDIX  C. — SHEET  3. — Partial  list  of  concerns  combined  with  or  acquired  by  Standard  Oil  interests  since  the  organization  of  the  Standard  Oil  Company  of  Ohio  in  1870  Continued 


(i) 

Year. 


1877 


(2) 

Name. 


Sone  &  Fleming  Mfg.  Co.. 
Philadelphia  Refining  Co. 
Empire  Transportation  Co. 


Producers  Consolidated  Land 
and  Petroleum  Co. 


C.  West  &  Sons . 

Merritt,  Jones  &  Co... 
J.  Parkhurst,  jr. ,  &  Co. 

Sylvia  C.  Hunt . 

James  C.  Christopher. 
Robert  Reed  &  Co. . . . 

Harry  Reed . . 

George  Hammel . 

D.  Hostetter . 


Columbia  Conduit  Co. 


Antwerp  Pipe  Co. 


(8) 


Property  and  business  acquired. 


(4) 


Large  refinery  on  Long  Island,  N.  Y. 
Refinery  at  Philadelphia,  Pa . 


Pipe  line  properties  in  Pennsylvania, 
tank  cars,  and  other  facilities  for  trans¬ 
porting  oil. 

Large  refinery  at  Bayonne,  N.  J.,  and  pro¬ 
ducing  properties  in  Pennsylvania. 


Refinery  at  Baltimore,  Md _ 

_ do . 

_ do . 

_ do . . 

. do . . 

. do . 

Gasoline  refinery  at  Baltimore. 
. do . 


Oil  City  Pipe  Co . . 

Clarion  Pipe  Line . ■ 

Sandy  Pipe  Co . 

Milton  Pipe  Line . 

Keystone  Pipe  Co . 

Karns  Pipe  Line . 

Hunter  &  Cummings  pipe  line. 

Pennsylvania  Transportation 
Co.  ' 


Union  Pipe  Co . 

Grant  Pipe  Line . 

Relief  Pipe  Line . 

Citizens  Oil  Works . 

72719—11.  (To  face  page  68.)  No.  9 


do. 

.do. 

.do. 

.do. 

.do. 

.do. 

.do. 

.do. 


.do. 

do. 

do. 


Manner  of  combination  or  acquisition;  whether  ac¬ 
quired  in  whole  or  in  part,  and  amount  paid 
therefor. 


Properties  and  business  acquired  in  one 
transaction  fromEmpire  Transportation 
Co.,  which  in  turn  was  owned  by  the 
Pennsylvania  Railroad,  and  which 
transaction  was  accompanied  by  a  re¬ 
bate  contract  (16:3119). 

Majority,  and  later  entire  stock. 


(5) 

Former  owners  of  property  who  there¬ 
upon  received  stock  in  Standard 
organization. 


Baltimore  United  Oil  Co.  organized  and 
.  took  over  all  these  properties;  Standard 
interests  received  over  five-sixths  of  the 
stock,  and  in  1883  acquired  the  balance. 


D.  Bushnell. 


Fairview  refinery  at  Pittsburg,  weekly 
capacity  2,136  barrels. 

*'% 

Trunk  pipe  line  from  western  Pennsyl- 
vaina  oil  fields  to  Pittsburg. 


Pipe  lines  in  western  Pennsylvania. 


Property  purchased  along  with  Standard’s 
acquisition  of  the  Columbia  Conduit  Co. 

Entire  stock  purchased;  United  Pipe 
Lines  had  constructed  a  parallel  line. 


Property  acquired  by  United  Pipe  Lines 


Refinery  at  Pittsburg,  weekly  capacity 
6,072  barrels. 


do. 

.do. 

.do. 

.do. 

.do. 

.do. 

.do. 

.do. 

.do. 

.do. 

.do. 


Property  purchased . 


(6) 

Whether  plants  were  thereafter  oper¬ 
ated  or  dismantled. 


Operated . 

(No  evidence) 
Operated . 


(No  evidence). 


(Dismantled  some;  consol i- 
\  dated  and  operated  others. 


Dismantled . 


Either  the  Conduit  line  orU. 
P.  L.  parallel  line  was  taken 
up. 

Consolidated  with  U.  P.  L. 
system. 


.do. 

.do. 

.do. 

.do. 

.do. 

.do. 

.do. 

.do. 


_ do . 

_ do . 

_ do . 

Dismantled 


(7) 

References. 


16:3085,  3173;  17:3264;  19:618,  675,  747. 

(See  brief,  vol.  1,  p.  32.) 

16:3086,  3174;  19:618,  747. 

16:3085-3088. 


16:3213;  17:3273,  3364;  19:618,  679,  774. 
(See  brief,  vol.  1,  p.  33.) 


5:2203-2204;  16:3175;  17:3267,3355,3358; 
19:618,  676,  752,  754.  (See  brief,  vol. 
1,  p.  27.) 


6:2630. 


6:2648,  3015,  3119,  3322,  3327;  16:3095; 
19:618. 


6:2649,  3015,  3321,  3322,  3327;  17:3329, 
3330. 


6:2630,3022. 


APPENDIX  C. 


'd  Oil  Company  of  Ohio  in  1870 — Continued. 


(i) 

Year. 


1878 


(6) 

were  thereafter  oper- 
r  dismantled. 


Smith’s  Fed  with  U.  P.  L. 


(7) 

References. 


17:3262,  3353;  19:618,  674,  747. 


Paine,  Abl< 
Excelsior  I . 


Eclipse  Wo. 

Portland  K 
American  I 


l 


Mica  Stean 
Grease  C< 

Waters-Piei . 


888. 


and  operated  un- 


17:3262,  3353;  19:618,  674,  742,  743.  (See 
brief,  vol.  1,  p.  33.) 

17:3262,  3353;  19:674.  (See  brief,  vol.  1, 
p.  33.) 

17:3275,  3368;  19:793,  679,  618. 


17:3273,  3364;  19:679. 

(16:3084,  3173;  17:3267,  3355;  19:618,  676, 
748.  (See  brief,  vol.  1,  p.  30.) 

16:3084,  3173;  17:3267;  19:676. 


17:3279;  19:618,637,681,808.  (See  brief, 
vol.  1,  pp.  29,  120.) 


Alexander 


17:3271,  3360;  19:677,  763,  764.  (See 
brief,  vol.  1,  p.  28.) 


Thompson, 


17:3274,  3367;  19:679,  782,  783.  (See 
brief,  vol.  1,  p.  31.) 


1880 


Swan  &  Fii 


17:3274,  3395;  7:427;  19:636. 


1879 


1879, 
or  prior 
thereto. 


Franklin  P 

Vesta  Oil  ^ 

J.  W.  Trun 
Backus  Oil 
Hanna,  Ch: 


17:3276;  19:640,  680,  799. 

17:3397;  19:645;  7:456. 

16:3160. 

16:3160. 

16:3160;  19:618. 


Bishop  &  I 
72719- 


16:3161. 


APPENDIX  C.  SHEET  4.  Partial  list  of  concerns  combined  with  or  acquired  by  Standard  Oil  interests  since  the  organization  of  the  Standard  Oil  Company  of  Ohio  in  1870  Continued. 


(i) 

Year. 


1878 


1880 


1879 


1879, 
or  prior 
thereto. 


(2) 

Name. 


Smith’s  Ferry  Oil  Transp.  Co. 


Paine,  Ablett  &  Co. 


Excelsior  Refinery. 


Eclipse  Works. 


Portland  Kerosine  Oil  Co . 

American  Lubricating  Oil  Co. 


Mica  Steam  Packing  &  Axle 
Grease  Co. 

Waters-Pierce  &  Co . 


Alexander  McDonald  &  Co. . 


Thompson,  Bedford  &  Co. 


Swan  &  Finch. 


Franklin  Pipe  Co. 


(8) 


Property  and  business  acquired. 


Pipe  lines  near  Smith’s  Ferry,  Pa. 


Refinery  at  Smith’s  Ferry,  Pa. 


Refinery  at  Freedom,  Pa. 


Large  lubricating  oil  works  at  Franklin, 
Pa. 

Refinery  at  Portland,  Me . 

Lubricating  oil  plant  at  Cleveland,  Ohio. 


do. 


Marketing  properties  and  business  in 
Southwestern  States,  headquarters  at 
St.  Louis. 


Marketing  properties  and  business  in 
Southern  and  Western  States,  head¬ 
quarters  at  Cincinnati. 


Marketing  and  exporting  lubricating  oils, 
New  York. 


Vesta  Oil  Works. 


J.  W.  Trunbull  &  Co 

Backus  Oil  Co . 

Hanna,  Chapin  &  Co. 


Compounding  and  marketing  lubricating 
oils,  New  York. 


Gathering  pipe  lines  in  western  Pennsyl¬ 
vania. 


Refinery  on  New  York  Harbor. 


Bishop  &  Heisel. 


Refinery  in  Cleveland. 
_ do . 


.do. 


.do. 


(4) 

Manner  of  combination  or  acquisition;  whether  ac¬ 
quired  in  whole  or  in  part,  and  amount  paid 
therefor. 


^Affiliated  properties,  and  were  acquired 
together  in  their  entirety. 


Property. 


.do. 


Stock  purchased,  1878  to  1886. 
Entire  property . 


.do. 


Waters-Pierce  Oil  Co.  organized  to  carry 
on  the  business;  Standard  interests 
acquired  60  per  cent  of  stock  for 
cash;  former  owners  retained  40  per 
cent. 

Consolidated  Tank  Line  Co.  organized  to 
carry  on  the  business;  Standard  ac¬ 
quired  half,  and  later  all  the  stock,  for¬ 
mer  owners  retaining  balance  in  the 
meantime. 

Thompson,  Bedford  &  Co.,  Limited,  or¬ 
ganized  to  carry  on  business;  Standard 
at  first  acquired  half,  and  later  balance 
of  stock,  which  in  meantime  was  held 
by  former  owners  of  the  business. 

Swan  A  Finch  Co.  organized  to  carry  on 
business;  Thompson  &  Bedford  owned 
half;  Standard  acquired  balance  of 
stock  in  1892  and  1894. 

Minority  of  shares  only  acquired  by 
Standard  interests. 

Stock  (limited  partnership)  purchased 
for  $127,500. 


Property  purchased. 
_ do . 


Property  exchanged  for  S.  O.  Co.  stock. 

(?) 


Property  purchased. 


(5) 

Former  owners  of  property  who  there¬ 
upon  received  stock  in  Standard 
organization. 


Hanna  (H.  M.)  and  Chapin 

(G.W.).  (?) 


(6) 

Whether  plants  were  thereafter  oper¬ 
ated  or  dismantled. 


Consolidated  with  U.  P.  L. 
system. 


Dismantled . 


.do. 


Operated. 


Dismantled . 


Consolidated  and  operated  un¬ 
til  about  1888. 


Operated. 


(7) 

References. 


do. 


do. 


do. 


17:3262,  3353;  19:618,  674,  747. 


17:3262,  3353;  19:618,  674,  742,  743.  (See 
brief,  vol.  1,  p.  33.) 

17:3262,  3353;  19:674.  (See  brief^  vol.  1, 
p.  33.) 

17:3275,3368;  19:793,  679,  618. 


17:3273,  3364;  19:679. 

f 16 : 3084,  3173;  17:3267,  3355;  19:618,  676, 
748.  (See  brief,  vol.  1,  p.  30.) 

.16:3084,  3173;  17:3267;  19:676. 


17:3279;  19:618,637,681,808.  (See  brief, 
vol.  1,  pp.  29,  120.) 


17:3271,  3360;  19:677,  763,  764.  (See 
brief,  vol.  1,  p.  28.) 


17:3274,  3367;  19:679,  782,  783.  (See 
brief,  vol.  1,  p.  31.) 


17:3274,  3395;  7:427;  19:636. 


do. 


17:3276;  19:640,  680,  799. 


17:3397;  19:645;  7:456. 


16:3160. 

16:3160. 

16:3160;  19:618, 


16:3161. 


72719-— 11.  (To  face  page  68.)  No.  10 


APPENDIX  Card  Oil  Company  of  Ohio  in  1870 — Continued. 


(i) 

Year. 


1879, 
or  prior 
thereto. 


1879 


(6) 

were  thereafter  oper- 
dismantled. 


Aladdin  Oil 
David  Bly  <5 
R.  S.  Warin; 

R.  J.  Wariru 
E.  J.  Waring 
Livingston  I 
W.  P.  Logar 
King  &  Goo< 
John  Speer  <!  ° 
P.  Weisenbe 
Brooks,  Ball 
J.  C.  Kirkp^ 

J.  A.  McKee 
H.  S.  A.  Ste 
Wormser,  M< 

J.  D.  Stockc 
Elkins  &  Fk 
Bergen  Poin 
Peerless... 
Kings  Count 
Republic  R^e) 
Glean  Petrol. . 


CO 

r— ! 

CO 

CO 


a> 

ci 

S-i 

a> 

o 

a> 

a* 


s-< 

QJ 

0X1 

'r- 


H3 

a> 

PI 

c3 

s 

QQ 

•rH 

<D 

<X> 

£ 

m 

Qj 

•  rH 

Sh 

a> 

PI 

a> 

J* 

f-l 

a> 

r-H 
r— H 

03 

s 

m 


72719—1 


Star  Oil  Co . 

Vacuum  Oil 

Galena  Oil  1 

Signal  Oil  W  and  operated. 


(D 

References. 


6:2630. 

6:2630. 

6:2630. 

6:2630. 

6:2630. 

6:2630. 

6:2630. 

6:2630. 

6:2630. 

6:2630. 

6:2630. 

6:2630. 

6:2630. 

6:2630. 

6:2630. 

6:2630. 

6:2630. 

6:2632. 

6:2632. 

6:2632. 

19:618. 

19:618. 

19:618. 

17:3277,  3370;  19:637,  681. 
vol.  1,  p.  31.) 


(See  brief, 


17:3274,  3366;  19:618,  680,  800.  (See 
brief,  vol.  1,  p.  31.) 

17:3274,  3366;  19:679,  775,  780. 


APPENDIX  C.  SHEET  5.  Partial  list  of  concerns  combined  with  or  acquired  by  Standard  Oil  interests  since  the  organization  of  the  Standard  Oil  Company  of  Ohio  in  1870  Continued. 


(i) 

Year. 


1879, 
or  prior 
thereto. 


1879 


(2) 

Name. 


Aladdin  Oil  Co.. 
David  Bly  &  Co. 

R.  S.  Waring _ 

R.  J.  Warms: _ 


E.  J.  Waring. 


Livingston  Bros . 


W.  P.  Logan  &  Co. 


King  &  Goodman . 

John  Speer  &  Co . 

P.  Weisenberger  &  Co . 

Brooks,  Ballantyne  &  Co... 

J.  C.  Kirkpatrick  &  Co . 

J.  A.  McKee  &  Son . 

H,  S.  A.  Stewart . 

Wormser,  Meyers  &  Co . 

J.  D.  Stockdale . 

Elkins  &  Flack . 

Bergen  Point . 

Peerless . 

Kings  County  Oil  Co . 

Republic  Refining  Co . 

Olean  Petroleum  Co.  (Ltd.) 


Star  Oil  Co . 

Vacuum  Oil  Co. 


Galena  Oil  Works  (Limited) 


Signal  Oil  Works  (Limited)... 


(3) 


Property  and  business  acquired. 


Weekly 

capacity, 

barrels. 

Refinery,  Pittsburg .  4,  017 

- do .  2,490 

Cosmos  refinery,  Pittsburg . 7,394 

Vesta  refinery,  Pittsburg .  9,  058 

Star  refinery,  Pittsburg .  3,718 

Crystal  refinery,  Pittsburg .  3,  624 

Eagle  refinery,  Pittsburg .  2,444 

Federal  refinery,  Pittsburg . 2,456 

Iron  City  refinery,  Pittsburg .  I,  600 

Keystone  refinery,  Pittsburg . 1,  018 

Lilly  refinery,  Pittsburg .  3,  072 

Liona  refinery,  Pittsburg .  564 

Liberty  refinery,  Pittsburg .  5,498 

Penn  refinery,  Pittsburg .  1,854 

Petrolite  refinery,  Pittsburg .  1,  703 

Radiant  refinery,  Pittsburg .  1,  906 

Riverside  refinery,  Pittsburg . 1,  809 

Refinery  on  New  York  Harbor . 

. do . 

. do . 

(No  evidence) . 


(No  evidence;  possibly  producing  prop¬ 
erties.) 


Business  and  property,  Erie,  Pa. 


Refinery  at  Rochester,  N.  Y.,  manufac¬ 
turing  lubricating  oils. 

Works  at  Franklin,  Pa.,  compounding 
lubricating  oils. 

Works  at  Franklin,  Pa.,  compounding 
lubricating  and  signal  oils. 


(4) 

Manner  of  combination  or  acquisition:  whether  ac¬ 
quired  in  whole  or  in  part,  and  amount  paid 
therefor. 


Property  purchased  or  leased. 

_ do . 

_ do . 

_ do . 


.do. 

.do. 

.do. 

.do. 

.do. 

.do. 

.do. 

.do. 

.do. 

.do. 

.do. 

.do. 

.do. 

.do. 

.do. 

.do. 


Entire  stock  purchased. 
_ do . 


Property  and  business  purchased . 


Stock  purchased ;  former  owners  retained 
about  one-quarter  interest  until  1900. 

Purchased  five-sixths  of  stock;  balance 
held  by  former  owners. 

About  40  per  cent  of  its  stock  acquired 
from  Galena  Oil  Works,  which  held  it 
at  time  latter  company’s  stock  was  ac¬ 
quired  by  Standard. 


(5) 

Former  owners  of  property  who  there¬ 
upon  received  stock  in  Standard 
organization. 


(6) 

Whether  plants  were  thereafter  oper¬ 
ated  or  dismantled. 


<x> 

! 

CO 

CO 


CD 

o3 

pH 

<D 

& 

o 

a> 

ph 

a> 


ZD 

a> 

fl 

o 

pH 

CD 

bO 

?H 

c3 


rO 

CD 

I— H 

a 

a 

GO 

•  rH 

rx3 

<d 

pH 

<D 

£ 

ZD 

CD 

•  rH 

Ph 

CD 

a 

a> 

Ph 

Ph 

<X> 

r— H 
r— I 

03 

a 

m 


(No  evidence). 
_ do . 


_ do. . . 

Operated . 


Consolidated  and  operated. 


(7) 

References. 


6:2630. 

6:2630. 

6:2630. 

6:2630. 

6:2630. 

6:2630. 

6:2630. 

6:2630. 

6:2630. 

6:2630. 

6:2630. 

6:2630. 

6:2630. 

6:2630. 

6:2630. 

6:2630. 

6:2630. 

6:2632. 

6:2632. 

6:2632. 

19:618. 

19:618. 

19:618. 

17:3277,  3370;  19:637,  681. 
vol.  1,  p.  31.) 


(See  brief, 


17:3274,  3366;  19:618,  680,  800.  (See 
brief,  vol.  1,  p.  31.) 

17:3274,  3366;  19:679,  775,  780. 


72719—11.  (To  face  page  68.)  No.  11 


APPENDIX  Cdard  Company  °f  Ohio  in  1870 — Continued. 


(i) 

Year. 


s  were  thereafter  oper- 
)r  dismantled. 


1879 


1880 


H.  C.  Van  T 


.util  1880. 


Bush  &  Oo. 


(6) 


(7) 

References. 


3d  in  1882. 


S. Jenny  & 
Yennie  &  B 
McGoey  & 
Wilson  &  A 
Gregory.... 
Bush  &  Dei 


Empire  Re 


in  1895. 


Solar  Oil  C 
Hamilton 


i 


itil  1901. 


17:3278,  3371;  19:618,  681,  805.  (See 
brief,  vol.  1,  p.  27.) 


17:3261,  3352;  19:673. 

17:3323,  3324;  1:258;  A:159;  6:2632. 

17:3323,  3324;  1:258. 

17:3323,  3324;  1:258. 

17:3323,  3324;  1:258. 

17:3323,  3324;  1:258. 

1:258;  17:3268,  3358;  19:676,  757.  (See 
brief,  vol.  2,  p.  68,  re  acquisition  of  these 
New  York  refineries  in  connection  with 
Standard’s  efforts  to  get  control  of  Tide¬ 
water  Pipe  Line.) 

17:3275,  3369;  19:680,  798.  (See  brief, 
vol.  1,  p.  27.) 

17:3262,  3354;  19:675. 

17:3271,  3361;  19:677;  7:455,  427. 


1881 


1882 


Chesebrou^ 


1883 


Atlas  Refii 

Union  Ref 

Tide-Wate 

Tide-Wate 

Central  R< 
P.  C.  Han 


m). 


McKirgan 


72719- 


in  1887. 


:e). 


17:3269,  3359;  19:633,  677,  758. 
17:3396;  19:644;  7:423,  424. 

17:3397;  19:645;  7:424. 

1:189,  195,  243;  17:3320;  19:641,  648. 

17:3397;  17:454;  19:644. 

17:3266,  3398,  3481;  19:646. 

19:646;  7:455. 


APPENDIX  C.  SHEET  6.  Partial  list  of  concerns  combined  with  or  acquired  by  Standard  Oil  interests  since  the  organization  of  the  Standard  Oil  Company  of  Ohio  in  1870  Continued. 


(i) 

Year. 


1879 


(2) 

Name. 


(3) 


Property  and  business  acquired. 


H.  0.  Van  Tine. 


1880 


Bush  &  Co.  (Limited). 


S.  Jenny  &  Sons . 

Yennie  &  Burke . 

McGoey  &  King . 

Wilson  &  Anderson . 

Gregory . 

Bush  &  Denslow  Mfg.  Co 


Empire  Refining  Co.  (Ltd.).  .  . 


Diamond  Works  at  Pittsburg,  manufac¬ 
turing  lubricating  oils. 


Manufacturing  and  marketing  lubricating 
oils,  Philadelphia. 

Wallabout  refinery,  New  York  Harbor... 

Refinery,  New  York  Harbor . . 

. do . 

. do . 

. do . . 

. do . 


Large  refinery  on  New  York  Harbor. 


(4) 

Manner  of  combination  or  acquisition;  whether  ac¬ 
quired  in  whole  or  in  part,  and  amount  paid 
therefor. 


H.  C.  Van  Tine  &  Co.  (Limited),  organ¬ 
ized  to  carry  on  the  business;  Standard 
acquired  three-quarters  of  its  stock  in 
1879  and  the  balance  in  1882. 

Entire  stock  purchased . 


Property  purchased. 

- do . 

- do . 

- do . 


.do. 


One-half  of  stock  purchased  in  1880,  bal¬ 
ance  in  1892. 


Standard  purchased  80  per  cent  of  stock; 
former  owners  retained  the  balance 
until  1891. 


(5) 

Former  owners  of  property  who  there¬ 
upon  received  stock  in  Standard 
organization. 


(6) 

Whether  plants  were  thereafter  oper¬ 
ated  or  dismantled. 


(7) 

References. 


Operated  until  1886. 


Discontinued  in  1882. 

Dismantled . 

. do . . 

. do . 

_ do . 

_ do . . 

Dismantled  in  1895. . . 


Operated . 


17:3278,  3371;  19:618,  681,  805.  (See 
brief,  vol.  1,  p.  27.) 


17:3261,  3352;  19:673. 

17:3323,  3324;  1:258;  A:159;  6:2632. 

17:3323,  3324;  1:258. 

17:3323,  3324;  1:258. 

17:3323,  3324;  1:258. 

17:3323,  3324;  1:258. 

1:258;  17:3268,  3358;  19:676, . 757.  (See 
brief,  vol.  2,  p.  68,  re  acquisition  of  these 
New  York  refineries  in  connection  with 
Standard’s  efforts  to  get  control  of  Tide¬ 
water  Pipe  Line.) 

17:3275,  3369;  19:680,  798.  (See  brief, 
vol.  1,  p.  27.) 


1881 

1882 


1883 


Solar  Oil  Co.  (Limited) _ 

Hamilton  &  Miller . 

Chesebrough  Mfg.  Co . 

Atlas  Refining  Co . 

Union  Refining  Co . 

Tide- Water  Oil  Co . 

Tide- Water  Pipe  Co.  (Ltd.) 

Central  Refining  Co.  (Ltd.) 
P.  C.  Hanford . 

McKirgan  Oil  Co . 


Small  refinery  at  Williamsport,  Pa . 

Lubricating  and  marketing  business, 
headquarters  Cincinnati,  Ohio. 


Works  at  New  York,  manufacturing  vase¬ 
line  and  vaseline  products. 

Refinery  at  Buffalo,  N.  Y . 


Refinery  at  Oil  City,  Pa . . . 

Large  refinery  on  New  York  Harbor . 

Gathering  lines  and  trunk  line  from  west¬ 
ern  Pennsylvania  to  New  York  Harbor, 
the  first  trunk  line  to  the  seaboard. 

Small  refinery  on  New  York  Harbor . 

Marketing  oils  in  Illinois  and  Wisconsin; 
headquarters  at  Chicago. 

Marketing  business,  Newark,  N.  J . 


Entire  stock  purchased . 

Inland  Oil  Co.  organized  to  carry  on  the  . 
business;  Standard  acquired  half  the 
stock  in  1880,  for  which  it  paid 
$70,076.40;  and  the  balance  it  acquired 
in  1891  for  $190,000  in  trust  certificates. 

Purchased  majority  of  stock;  former  own-  . 
ers  retained  balance. 

Entire  stock  acquired  in  1882  and  1883  . 
for  $39,000  in  trust  certificates. 

Stock  purchased  for  $105,279.13  in  trust  . 
certificates  and  cash. 

'  Purchased  31  per  cent  of  stock,  and  en¬ 
deavored  to  get  control;  also  entered 

►  into  pool  contract  with  Tide-Water  ► 
companies.  (See  brief,  vol.  2,  p.  68  et 
seq.) 

Entire  stock  purchased;  two-thirds  in  . 
1883  for  $100,000,  and  balance  in  1900. 

P.  C.  Hanford  Oil  Co.  organized  to  carry  on  . 
the  business;  Standard  acquired  a  bare 
majority  of  its  shares,  for  which  it  paid 
$255,000  in  trust  certificates;  balance  of 
stock  acquired  in  1890. 

This  company  was  organized  to  take  over  . 
a  marketing  business  at  Newark;  Stand¬ 
ard  paid  $38,200  for  a  little  over  a  half 
interest,  and  acquired  the  remainder  of 
its  stock  the  year  following. 


Dismantled . 

Operated  until  1901 


17:3262,  3354;  19:675. 

17:3271,  3361;  19:677;  7:455,  427. 


Operated . 

(No  evidence) . 

Dismantled  in  1887 


17:3269,  3359;  19:633,  677,  758. 
17:3396;  19:644;  7:423,  424. 
17:3397;  19:645;  7:424. 


Dismantled 

Operated... 


1:189,  195,  243;  17:3320;  19:641,  648. 

17:3397;  17:454;  19:644. 

17:3266,  3398,  3481;  19:646. 


(No  evidence) 


19:646;  7:455. 


72719 — 11.  (To  face  page  68.)  No.  12 


APPENDIX  C. — i  Oil  Company  of  Ohio  in  1870 — Continued. 


(i) 

Year. 


1885 


1886 


1887 


1888 


1889 


ere  thereafter  oper- 
smantled. 


Dangler  Refinic 
Clark  Bros.  &  C 
Crystal  Oil  Co. 
Forest  City  Oil 
Woodland  Oil  C 

Lloyd  Tevis...- 


Isaac  E.  Blake 


Pittsburg  Pipe  zed 


United  Refiners. 
Logan,  Emery  <!. 


Holdship  &  Irwlt  half  the  time 
e;  dismantled 
se. 


D.  P.  Reighard 


United  Oil  Co.|idard  buys  and 
mtire  product. 


Monarch  Oil  Co 


Globe  Oil  Co. .  .,il  1892 


Chester  Oil  Co. 
West  Michigan 
Capital  City  Oili 


Whites  Golden 


il  1899. 


11  1892.. 
ntinued . 
n  1901.. 


ntinued. 


(U 

References. 


6:3029,  3030. 
6:3029,  3030. 
6:3029,  3030. 
6:3029,  3330. 
6:3028-3330. 

17:3394;  19:635. 


17:3390,  3391;  19:634. 


6:2630,  3009-3015,  3019;  17:3330. 


6:2630,  3131  to  3133;  17:3330. 


6:3015,  3019-3022,  3131;  17:3330. 


19:647. 

6:2641-2647;  17:3340. 

19:637;  A:58,  488. 
19:646. 

19:647;  7:457. 

19:646;  7:454. 

19:647;  7:456,  426. 
19:646;  7:454. 


19:647;  2:716;  7:457. 


72719—11. 


APPENDIX  C.  SHEET  7.  Partial  list  of  concerns  combined,  with  or  acquired  by  Standard  Oil  interests  since  the  organization  of  the  Standard  Oil  Company  of  Ohio  in  1870  Continued, 


(i) 

Year. 


1885 


1886 


1887 


1888 


1889 


(2) 

Name. 


Dangler  Refining  Co. 

Clark  Bros.  &  Co _ 

Crystal  Oil  Co . 

Forest  City  Oil  Co. . 
Woodland  Oil  Co.... 


Lloyd  Tevis. 


Isaac  E.  Blake 


Holdship  &  Irwin, 


D.  P.  Reighard. 


Pittsburg  Pipe  Line. 


United  Refiners  Export  Co. 
Logan,  Emery  &  Weaver... 


(3) 


Property  and  business  acquired. 


United  Oil  Co. 


Monarch  Oil  Co. 
Globe  Oil  Co... 


Chester  Oil  Co . 

West  Michigan  Oil  Co. 
Capital  City  Oil  Co. . . 


Refinery  at  Cleveland,  Ohio. 
_ do . 


(U 

Manner  of  combination  or  acquisition;  whether  ac¬ 
quired  in  whole  or  in  part,  and  amount  paid 
therefor. 


do. 

.do. 


Refinery  at  Cleveland,  weekly  capacity 
about  1,400  barrels. 

Marketing  business  in  Pacific  Coast  States. 


Property  purchased. 

_ do . 

_ do . 

_ do . 

_ do . 


Marketing  business  in  Rocky  Mountain 
States. 


American  works,  a  large  refinery  at  Pitts¬ 
burg,  weekly  capacity,  6,828  barrels. 


Empire  works  at  Pittsburg,  manufactur¬ 
ing  principally  lubricating  oil. 

About  32  miles  of  pipes  from  the  oil  fields 
to  Holdship  &  Irwin  and  D.  P.  Reig- 
hard’s  refineries  in  Pittsburg;  also  de¬ 
livering  oil  to  two  other  independent 
refineries. 

Marketing  business,  Perth  Amboy,  N.  J.. 

Large  refinery  and  wharves,  at  Philadel¬ 
phia,  costing  about  $350,000,  completed 
in  1880. 


Large  refinery  at  Florence,  Colo 


Marketing  business,  Cincinnati  and  vi¬ 
cinity. 

Marketing  business  in  Minneapolis  and 
vicinity. 


Marketing  business  in  Minnesota . 

Marketing  business  in  western  Michigan 
Marketing  business  at  Harrisburg,  Pa  — 


Whites  Golden]  Lubricator  Co. 

72719 — 11.  (To  face  page  68.)  No.  13 


Marketing  business,  Cincinnati  and  vi¬ 
cinity. 


Business  taken  over  by  Standard  Oil  Co. 
of  Iowa  in  exchange  for  minority  stock 
interest  in  latter  company,  which  in¬ 
terest  was  purchased  by  Standard  in 
1892. 

Continental  Oil  Co.  organized  to  carry  on 
business;  former  owners  held  minor¬ 
ity  stock  interest  until  1892,  when  it 
was  purchased  by  Standard. 

Leased  to  Standard  for  five  years  in  1878; 
property  acquired  in  exchange  for  trust 
certificates  in  1886;  Holdship  and  Ir¬ 
win  agreed  not  to  again  engage  in  the 
business. 

Property  purchased . 


Was  owned  jointly  by  Holdship  &  Irwin 
and  D.  P.  Reighard,  and  sold  with  their 
refineries  to  Standard. 


Entire  stock  ($50,000)  purchased. 
Purchased  for  $275,000  cash . 


Purchased  17  per  cent  of  stock. 


Stock  purchased  in  1887  and  1890. 


Entire  stock  purchased  for  $25,925. 


(5) 

Former  owners  of  property  who  there¬ 
upon  received  stock  in  Standard 
organization. 


Entire  stock  purchased  for  $10,000. 
Entire  stock  purchased  for  $12,500. 


Upon  organization  company  acquired 
marketing  business  at  Harrisburg,  for¬ 
mer  owners  receiving  minority  interest, 
which  Standard  acquired  in  1901. 


Entire  stock  purchased  for  $31,521 


(6) 

Whether  plants  were  thereafter  oper¬ 
ated  or  dismantled. 


(7) 

References. 


Dismantled 

_ do . 

_ do . 

_ do . 

_ do . . 


Operated. 


.do 


Operated  about  half  the  time 
during  lease;  dismantled 
after  purchase. 


Dismantled. 


Probably  utilized. 


(No  evidence). 
Dismantled . . . 


Operated;  Standard  buys  and 
markets  its  entire  product. 

Continued  until  1899 . . 


Continued  until  1892. 


Continued  until  1892.. 
Business  discontinued. 
Discontinued  in  1901.. 


Business  discontinued. 


6:3029,  3030. 
6:3029,  3030. 
6:3029,  3030. 
6:3029,  3330. 
6:3028-3330. 

17:3394;  19:635. 


17:3390,  3391;  19:634. 


6:2630,  3009-3015,  3019;  17:3330. 


6:2630,  3131  to  3133;  17:3330. 


6:3015,  3019-3022,  3131;  17:3330. 


19:647. 

6:2641-2647;  17:3340. 

19:637;  A:58,  488. 
19:646. 

19:647;  7:457. 

19:646;  7:454. 

19:647;  7:456,  426. 
19:646;  7:454. 


19:647;  2:716;  7:457. 


APPENDIX  C iard  Oil  Company  of  Ohio  in  1870 — Continued. 


(i) 

Year. 


1889 


1890 


1891 

1892 


1893 


1895 


(6) 


3  were  thereafter  oper- 
-*  dismantled. 


Mehlen’s  Fal 

Globe  Refin 
burg. 

Globe  Refini 
delphia 


Western  &  A 
Co. 


Underhay  & 
New  Jersey  p)- 


Blodgett,  Me^ 


ntil  1892. 


iismantled;  pipe 
aps  utilized. 


Des  Moines  ( 
Electric  Lig 
L.  D.  Mix  Of 
Excelsior  Oi 


)ogus  independent . 


ogus  independent . 


Sutton  Bros, 
Borne,  Scryl 

Grant  &  Mc< 


Oakdale  OiP 
Nicolai  Bros 


ogus  independent . 


Union  Refin 


72719- 


ine  Co.  stock  held 
annually. 


(7) 

References. 


19:646;  3:1509;  7:455. 


6:3133-3137;  7:426,  455,  457,  501;  17:3331, 
3332;  19:644,  648. 


17:3395;  19:637;  7:457. 
19:647;  7:457,  426. 

5:2166. 

2:959;  19:646;  7:462,  454. 
19:646;  6:3206;  2:850;  7:465. 
2:968;  19:647;  7:457. 

3:1243. 

3:1243. 

17:3389;  19:633. 

17:3393;  19:634. 

2:851. 

13:1195. 


6:2842,  2661;  3169,  3178;  17:3338,  3352; 
18:28. 


(See  brief,  vol.  2,  pp.  84-88,  regarding 
Standard’s  oppressive  manipulation  of 
prices  and  offer  to  buy  the  pipe  lines 
and  all  independent  refineries  affiliated 
with  the  United  States  Pipe  Lines.) 


APPENDIX  C.  SHEET  8.  Partial  list  of  concerns  combined  with  or  acquired  by  Standard  Oil  interests  since  the  organization  of  the  Standard  Oil  Company  of  Ohio  in  1870  Continued. 


(i) 

Year. 


1889 

1890 


1891 

1892 


1893 

1895 


(2) 

Name. 


Mehlen’s  Family  Oil  Co. 


Globe  Refining  Co.,  of  Pitts¬ 
burg. 

Globe  Refining  Co.,  of  Phila¬ 
delphia. 


Western  &  Atlantic  Pipe  Line 
Co. 


Underhay  &  Co.  . . 
New  Jersey  Oil  Co. 


Blodgett,  Moore  &  Co 


Des  Moines  Oil  Tank  Line  Co. 

Electric  Light  Oil  Co . 

L.  D.  Mix  Oil  &  Naphtha  Co. . 
Excelsior  Oil  Co . 


Sutton  Bros . 

Borne,  Scrymser  &  Co. 

Grant  &  McCargo . 


(3) 


Property  and  business  acquired. 


Marketing  business,  Long  Island  City 
and  vicinity. 

Large  refinery  at  Pittsburg,  completed 
and  in  operation,  cost  about  $250,000. 

Refinery  nearly  completed  at  Philadel¬ 
phia,  same  size  as  Pittsburg  refinery. 

Gathering  lines  in  western  Pennsylvania 
and  trunk  line  to  Pittsburg  owned  by 
owners  of  Globe  Refining  Co.,  and 
supplying  crude  to  several  independ¬ 
ents;  also  owned  1,152  tank  cars,  tele¬ 
graph  lines,  etc.;  total  value  about 
$323,000. 


Marketing  business  at  Boston,  Mass. 
Marketing  business  at  Newark,  N.  J. 


Marketing  business,  South  Carolina  and 
Georgia  points. 

Marketing  business  in  Iowa  and  Nebraska. 

Marketing  business  in  Philadelphia . 

Marketing  business  at  Cleveland . 


Marketing  business  at  several  Kansas 
points. 

Marketing  business  at  Kansas  City,  Mo. . . 


Oakdale  Oil  Works. 
Nicolai  Bros . 


Union  Refining  Co. 


Compounding  lubricating  oils  at  New 
York  City,  and  marketing  same. 

Works  at  Pittsburg;  manufacturing  mill 
greases. 


Marketing  business  in  Philadelphia - 

Marketing  business  in  Washington,  D.  C 

National  refinery  at  Titusville,  Pa . . 

Schwartz  refinery  at  Titusville,  Pa . 

Western  refinery  at  Titusville,  Pa . 


(4) 

Manner  of  combination  or  acquisition;  whether  ac¬ 
quired  in  whole  or  in  part,  and  amount  paid 
therefor. 


Entire  stock  purchased  for  $28,018.36. 


These  refining  companies,  and  45  per 
cent  of  stock  of  W.  &  A.  P.  L.  Co., 
acquired  from  D.  P.  Reighard  (who 
had  once  been  bought  out  by  Stand¬ 
ard  in  1886),  for  $1,224,800  of  trust  cer¬ 
tificates  and  $50,000  in  cash. 


(5) 

Former  owners  of  property  who  there¬ 
upon  received  stock  in  Standard 
organization. 


Property  purchased  for  $30,000. 


Stock  purchased  for  $34,612  in  cash  and 
$6,500  in  trust  certificates. 

Property  purchased . 


Stock  purchased  for  $25,000. 
Stock  purchased  for  $5,000. . . 
Stock  purchased  for  $1,900. . . 
Property,  purchased . 


.do. 

.do. 


4) .  P.  Reighard 


Pennsylvania  Lubricating  Co.  organized 
to  carry  on  the  business;  former  owners 
receiving  minority  of  stock. 


Property  and  business  purchased. 
_ do . 


Combined  weekly  still  capacity  10,000  to 
12,000  barrels.  Also  stock  in  United 
States  Pipe  Line  Co. 


Manner  of  acquisition  not  shown,  but 
at  least  one  former  owner  became  inter¬ 
ested  in  Standard. 


John  Fertig 


(6) 

Whether  plants  were  thereafter  oper¬ 
ated  or  dismantled. 


Continued  until  1892. 


(7) 

References 


19:646;  3:1509;  7:455. 


J Refineries  dismantled;  pipe 
\  lines  perhaps  utilized. 


Continued _ 

(No  evidence). 

Discontinued. . 


6:3133-3137;  7:426,  455,  457,  501;  17:3331, 
3332;  19:644,  648. 


do. 


Operated  as  bogus  independent . 

Discontinued . . 

Operated  as  bogus  independent . 


. do... 

Operated 


do. 


Discontinued . 

Operated  as  bogus  independent . 


Dismantled 
_ do _ 


do. 


U.  S.  Pipe  Line  Co.  stock  held 
and  voted  annually. 


17:3395;  19:637;  7:457. 
19:647;  7:457,  426. 

5:2166. 

2:959;  19:646;  7:462,  454. 
19:646;  6:3206;  2:850;  7:465. 
2:968;  19:647;  7:457. 

3:1243. 

3:1243. 

17:3389;  19:633. 

17:3393;  19:634. 

2:851. 

13:1195. 


6:2842,  2661;  3169,  3178;  17:3338,  3352; 
18:28.  ’ 


(See  brief,  vol.  2,  pp.  84-88,  regarding 
Standard’s  oppressi\e  manipulation  of 
prices  and  offer  to  buy  the  pipe  lines 
and  all  independent  refineries  affiliated 
with  the  United  States  Pipe  Lines.) 


72719—11.  (To  face  page  68.)  No.  14 


APPENDIX  Qard  Oil  Company  of  Ohio  in  1870 — Continued. 


(i) 

Year. 


1895 


1896 

1897 

1898 


1899 


(6) 

ts  were  thereafter  oper- 
or  dismantled. 


Mutual  Oil 


.  U.  S.  Pipe  Line 
s:  held  and  voted 


Internation- 


Crescent  P: 


Mellon  line 


Crescent  re 


Bartels  &  led 


New  Amer 


Commerciajed 

Peoples  Oi 
Argand  Re 


Manhattan 


Indiana  Pi 
Co. 


s  bogus  independ- 


s  bogus  independ- 


dismantled.  All 
s  conveyed  to  other 
concerns,  except 
is,  which  are  still 
in  name  of  Man- 
il  Co.,  but  deliver 
to  Standard. 

dismantled ;  pipe 
rated  under  same 
lent  as  Manhattan 
s. 


(7) 

References. 


6:2842,  2661,  3169,  3178;  17:3338,  3352; 
18:67. 


6:2842,  2661;  17:3338,  3352;  18:67. 


17:3233,  3325;  19:640. 


17:3325,  3466. 


17:3325. 


17:3481. 


6:3037,  3046-3048.  (See  brief,  vol.  2, 
p.  582.) 

5:2094-2098. 

5:2098-2104;  12:901.  (See  brief,  vol.  2, 
p.  553.) 

5:2419;  13:1349;  13:3331,  3337;  19:650. 


(See  brief,  vol.  1,  p.  105.) 


(See  brief,  vol.  1,  p.  111.) 


Climax  Oil . . 

Cassetty  O  -s  bogus  independ- 

Protection  ed . 

Paragon  O; . 


72719- 


8:522;  17:3339. 

12:951-955. 

7:510;  2:716,  718. 

6:2803-2809.  (See  brief,  vol.  2,  p.  556.) 


PPENDIX  C.  SHEET  9.  Partial  list  of  concerns  combined  with  or  acquired  by  Standard  Oil  interests  since  the  organization  of  the  Standard  Oil  Company  of  Oh 


,10  %n  lo/u — uonunueu. 


(1) 

Year. 

(2) 

Name. 

(3) 

Property  and  business  acquired. 

1895 

Mutual  Oil  Co . 

Refinery  at  Reno,  Pa.,  weekly  still  capac¬ 
ity  3,000  to  4,000  barrels.  Also  stock 
in  United  States  Pipe  Line  Co. 

International  Oil  Works  (Ltd.). 

Refinery  at  Reno,  Pa.,  weekly  still  capac¬ 
ity  3,500  to  4,500  barrels.  Also  stock 
in  United  States  Pipe  Line  Co. 

Crescent  Pipe  Line  Co . 

Trunk  pipe  line  from  western  Pennsyl¬ 
vania  oil  fields  to  seaboard  near  Phila¬ 
delphia. 

Mellon  lines . 

Large  system  of  gathering  pipe  lines  (302 
miles)  in  western  Pennsylvania  oil 
fields;  associated  with  Crescent  Pipe 
Line  Co. 

Crescent  refinery . 

Refinery  nearly  completed  at  Marcus 
Hook,  near  Philadelphia;  associated 
with  Crescent  Pipe  Line  Co. 

1896 

Bartels  &  Richardson . 

Marketing  business  in  Minnesota,  Wis¬ 
consin,  and  Dakotas;  headquarters  at 
St.  Paul. 

1897 

New  American  Oil  Co . 

Marketing  in  northern  Ohio . 

1898 

Commercial  Oil  Co . 

Marketing  business  in  Georgia . 

Peoples  Oil  Co . 

o  o 

Marketing  business,  Atlanta  and  sur¬ 
rounding  territory.  ' 

Argand  Refining  Co . 

Refinery  at  Marietta,  Ohio;  weekly  still 
capacity  1,800  barrels;  also  manufac¬ 
turing  railroad  lubricating  oils. 

1899 

Manhattan  Oil  Co . 

Pipe  lines  main  and  gathering,  in  north 
and  south  Lima  oil  fields  [in  Ohio  and 
Indiana];  some  producing  properties  in 
Ohio  and  Indiana;  a  large  refinery  at 
Welker,  Ohio;  between  800  and  900 
tank  cars;  and  marketed  its  own  pro¬ 
ducts. 

Indiana  Pipe  Line  &  Refining 

About  180  miles  of  pipe  line  completed, 

Co. 

from  Indiana  oil  field  to  Kankakee, 
Ill.;  and  a  large  refinery  at  Kankakee 
completed  and  ready  for  operation, 
except  certain  of  the  by-product  de¬ 
partments. 

Climax  Oil  Co 

Caldwell  refinery  at  Titusville . 

Cassetty  Oil  Co . 

Marketing  business,  headquarters  at 
Nashville,  Tenn. 

Protection  Oil  Co . 

Marketing  business,  headquarters  at 
Cincinnati,  Ohio. 

Paragon  Oil  Co . 

Marketing  business,  Columbus,  Ohio . 

(4) 

Manner  of  combination  or  acquisition;  whether  ac¬ 
quired  in  whole  or  in  part,  and  amount  paid 
therefor. 


Manner  of  acquisition  not  shown,  but  at 
least  one  former  owner  became  inter¬ 
ested  in  Standard. 


.do. 


Entire  stock  purchased 


(5) 

Former  owners  of  property  who  there¬ 
upon  received  stock  in  Standard 
organization. 


S.  Y.  Ramage 


S.  Y.  Ramage 


Acquired  from  Mellon’s,  of  Pittsburg, 
when  Crescent  lines  were  acquired. 


Acquired  from  Mellon’s,  of  Pittsburg, 
when  Crescent  Pipe  Lines  were 
acquired. 


Property  purchased. 


.do. 

.do. 

do. 


Plant  leased  for  10  years  and  kept  idle; 
subsequently  Standard  acquired  the 
stock  for  $180,000. 

Acquired  through  General  Industrials 
Development  Syndicate  (Ltd.),  of 
London,  for  about  $2,800,000.  (See 
brief,  vol.  1,  p.  106  et  seq..) 


Acquired  from  the  Cudahy  interests  of 
Chicago  by  the  General  Industrials 
Syndicate  (Ltd.),  of  London,  about 
the  same  time  the  Manhattan  Company 
was  acquired. 


Property  purchased  for  $42,500. 
Leased  for  five  years . 


Property  purchased 
_ do . 


(6) 

Whether  plants  were  thereafter  oper¬ 
ated  or  dismantled. 


(7) 

References. 


Dismantled.  U.  S.  Pipe  Line 
Co.  stock  held  and  voted 
annually. 


.do. 


6:2842,  2661,  3169,  3178;  17:3338,  3352; 
18:67. 


6:2842,2661;  17:3338,  3352;  18:67. 


Operated .  17:3233,  3325;  19:640. 


.do. 


Dismantled . 


Discontinued . .  17 : 3481 . 


17:3325,  3466. 


17:3325. 


Operated  as  bogus  independ¬ 
ent. 


Discontinued . 


Operated  as  bogus  independ¬ 
ent. 


Dismantled . 


Refinery  dismantled.  All 
properties  conveyed  to  other 
Standard  concerns,  except 
pipe  lines,  which  are  still 
operated  in  name  of  Man¬ 
hattan  Oil  Co.,  but  deliver 
their  oil  to  Standard. 

Refinery  dismantled ;  pipe 
lines  operated  under  same 
management  as  Manhattan 
pipe  lines. 


6:3037,  3046-3048.  (See  brief,  vol.  2, 
p.  582.) 

5:2094-2098. 

5:2098-2104;  12:901.  (See  brief,  vol.  2, 
p.  553.) 

5:2419;  13:1349;  13:3331,  3337;  19:650. 


(See  brief,  vol.  1,  p.  105.) 


Dismantled . 


Operated  as  bogus  independ¬ 
ent. 


(See  brief,  vol.  1,  p.  111.) 


Discontinued. 
_ do . 


72719 — 11.  (To  face  page  68.)  No.  15 


8:522;  17:3339. 

12:951-955. 

7:510;  2:716,  718. 

6:2803-2809.  (See  brief,  vol.  2,  p.  556.) 


APPENDIX  C. 


rd  Oil  Company  of  Ohio  in  1870 — Continued. 


(i) 

Year. 


1899 


1900 


1901 


(2(6) 

vere  thereafter  oper- 
Nahismantled. 


C.  P.  Wagner 


(7) 

References. 


Dixie  Oil  Co.  Aogus  independ- 
06. 

Southern  Oil  ct>ogus  independ- 


Pacific  Coast  O^antled,  rebuilt 
id,  Cal. 


Relief  Oil  Wort 
Vincennes  Oil 


)Ogus  independ- 


International  C 
Central  Refinic 


Crawfordsville 
Scofield,  Shur 


r  mantled.  Mar- 
iness  continued 
c  Oil  Co.  as  bo- 
ident  until  1905. 


2:718;  7:510. 

5 : 2107,  2279 ;  2 : 725.  (See  brief,  vol.  2,  p . 
542.) 

5:2358,  2393,  2316.  (See  brief,  vol.  2,  p. 
535.) 

17:3391,  3405;  19:635,  650. 


(See  brief,  vol.  2, 


8:524;  17:3340. 

5:2521;  6:2835;  2:721. 
p.  569.) 

3:1113. 

5 : 2515’-2517. 

5:2515. 


3:1042,  1044,  1152,  1467;  17:3318,  3338; 
19:650.  (See  brief,  vol.  2,  p.  585,  et 
seq.) 


1902 


1904 


Ellis  &  Cummi) 

Oil  Creek  refin ) 

Lake  Carriers’ 

Leader  Refinic 
Toledo  Oil  Wopogus  independ- 

Alabama  Oil  C^ogus  independ- 
Consumers’  OiPogus  independ- 


Independent  C . 

Denlinger  Bro^ogus  independ- 
06. 

F.  P.  Joyce  Oi  'rhaps  as  bogus 
it. 


Southeastern  C 

King-Keystone 

72719—1 


8:528;  17:3340. 

8:530;  17:3340. 

5:2100. 

8:534;  17:3340. 

6:3052-3054.  (See  brief,  vol.  2,  p.  584.) 

See  brief,  vol.  2,  p.  555. 

2:725;  6:2836. 

13:1191. 

2:849;  17:3400;  19:650. 

2:744. 

2:720;  5:2156;  7 :511. 

2:742. 


APPENDIX  C.— SHEET  10.— Partial  list  of  concerns  combined  with  or  acquired  by  Standard  Oil  interests  since  the  organization  of  the  Standard  Oil  Company  of  Ohio  %n  1870  Continued. 


(1) 

Year. 


1899 


1900 


1901 


1902 


1904 


(2) 

Name. 


C.  P.  Wagner  &  Co. 
Dixie  Oil  Co . 


(3) 


Property  and  business  acquired. 


(4) 

Manner  of  combination  or  acquisition;  whether  ac¬ 
quired  in  whole  or  in  part,  and  amount  paid 
therefor. 


Marketing  concern . 


Southern  Oil  Co. 


Pacific  Coast  Oil  Co. 


Marketing  business  in  several  Southern 
States,  headquarters  at  Savannah,  Ga. 

Marketing  business,  Richmond,  Va . . 


Relief  Oil  Works. 
Vincennes  Oil  Co. 


International  Oil  Works 
Central  Refining  Co . 


Refinery  at  Alameda,  near  San  Francisco ; 
producing  properties  in  California;  pipe 
lines;  and  marketing  business. 

Plant  at  Franklin,  Pa . 


Property  purchased  for  about  $4,600. 
Property  purchased . 


.do. 


Purchased  for  $761,000. 


Retail  marketing  business,  Vincennes, 

Ind. 

Marketing  business,  St.  Louis,  Mo . 


Crawfordsville  Oil  Co . 

Scofield,  Shurmer  &  Teagle  .  . 


Marketing  business,  headquarters  at 
Brazil,  Ind. 


Marketing  business,  Crawfordsville,  Ind. 


(No  evidence) . 

Property  purchased , 


Ellis  &  Cummings. . . 
Oil  Creek  refinery  — 
Lake  Carriers’  Oil  Co 
Leader  Refining  Co.. 
Toledo  Oil  Works  — 


Alabama  Oil  Co . . . 
Consumers’  Oil  Co 


Independent  Oil  Co... 
Denlinger  Bros.  Oil  Co. 


F.  P.  Joyce  Oil  Co 


Southeastern  Oil  Co 


King-Keystone  Oil  Co 


Refineries  at  Cleveland  and  Scio,  Ohio 
(Cleveland  Refining  Co.,  and  Scio  Re¬ 
fining  Co.),  large  marketing  business, 
by  tank  wagon  and  otherwise,  in  Ohio, 
Michigan,  Indiana,  Illinois,  Iowa, 
Kansas,  Missouri,  Nebraska,  and  other 
States.  An  old,  active,  and  aggressive 
competitor  of  the  Standard. 


Refinery  in  Pennsylvania . 

Refinery  in  Pennsylvania . 

Marketing  business,  Atlanta,  Ga. 
Plant  at  Taylorstown,  Pa . 


.do. 

.do. 

.do. 


Property  purchased 


Marketing  concern,  headquarters  Toledo, 
equipped  and  just  ready  to  start  busi¬ 
ness. 


Marketing  business,  Birmingham,  Ala 
and  vicinity. 


Marketing  business,  Macon,  Ga. 


•> 


Marketing  business,  Washington,  D.  0. .. 

Marketing  business,  western  Pennsyl¬ 
vania,  headquarters  Pittsburg. 

Marketing  business  in  San  Francisco . 


Property  purchased  for  about  $33,600.00. 
Property  purchased  for  about  $76,000.00. 

Property  purchased . . 

Property  purchased  for  about  $9,500.00. . 
Property  purchased . 


(5) 


Former  owners  of  property  who  there¬ 
upon  received  stock  in  Standard 
organization. 


Leased  for  five  years. 


Property  purchased 

Property  purchased 
Stock  purchased.... 


Property  purchased 


Marketing  business,  Birmingham,  Ala., 
and  vicinity. 

Marketing  business,  San  Francisco . 


Property  purchased  for  about  $4,300.00. 


Purchased  refined  oil  department. 


72719—11.  (To  face  page  68.)  No.  16 


(6) 

Whether  plants  were  thereafter  oper¬ 
ated  or  dismantled. 


Discontinued 


Operated  as  bogus  independ¬ 
ent  until  1906. 

Operated  as  bogus  independ¬ 
ent. 

Refinery  dismantled,  rebuilt 
at  Richmond,  Cal. 


(No  evidence). 


Operated  as  bogus  independ¬ 
ent. 


_ do . 

Discontinued. 


.do. 


Refineries  dismantled.  Mar¬ 
keting  business  continued 
by  Republic  Oil  Co.  as  bo¬ 
gus  independent  until  1905. 


(7) 

References. 


2:718;  7:510. 

5:2107,  2279;  2:725.  (See  brief,  vol.  2,  p. 
542.) 

5:2358,  2393,  2316.  (See  brief,  vol.  2,  p. 
535.) 

17:3391,  3405;  19:635,  650. 


(See  brief,  vol.  2, 


8:524;  17:3340. 

5:2521;  6:2835;  2:721. 
p.  569.) 

3:1113. 

5:2515-2517. 


5:2515. 

3:1042,  1044,  1152,  1467;  17:3318,  3338; 
19:650.  (See  brief,  vol.  2,  p.  585,  et 
seq.) 


(No  evidence). 
(No  evidence). 
Discontinued. 
Dismantled . . . 


Operated  as  bogus  independ¬ 
ent. 


Operated  as  bogus  independ¬ 
ent. 

Operated  as  bogus  independ¬ 
ent. 

Discontinued . 


Operated  as  bogus  independ¬ 
ent  until  1906. 

Operated,  perhaps  as  bogus 
independent. 

Discontinued . 


Discontinued. 


8:528;  17:3340. 

8:530;  17:3340. 

5:2100. 

8:534;  17:3340. 

6:3052-3054.  (See  brief,  vol.  2,  p.  584.) 

See  brief,  vol.  2,  p.  555. 

2:725;  6:2836. 

13:1191. 

2:849;  17:3400;  19:650. 

2:744. 

2:720;  5:2156; 7:511. 

2:742. 


APPENDIX  C- 


■d  Oil  Company  of  Ohio  in  1870— Continued. 


(1) 

< 

(7) 

Year. 

is 

•e  thereafter  oper- 
'•  nan  tied. 

Keferences. 

1904 

Arctic  Oil  Wc 

2:741,  742. 

0.  F.  Warner. 

2:720;  7:511. 

1905 

Star  Oil  Co.  . 

Memphis  Oil 

2:719;  7:511. 

2:723. 

N  o  date 

Pierce  &  Cant 

12:718. 

given. 

Southern  Oil 

2:715;  7:510. 

Eastern  Oil  & 

12:721. 

Co. 

Penn  Oil  Co  . 

Brooks  Oil  Co 

[a  independent. 

2:743. 

2:720;  5:2517;  7:511. 

Illinois  Oil  Co 

2:756. 

Mutual  Oil  Co 

2:716. 

Peuss  Oil  Co., 

eus  for  bogus 

5:2367. 

: 

Liberty  Oil  C< 

Fhnke  Bros.,  i 

Home  Safety 
oncerns. 

3  independent. 

3:1511. 

3:1510. 

72719—11 


t 


ENDIX  C.  SHEET  11.  Partial  list  oj  concerns  combined  with  or  acquired  by  Standard  Oil  interests  since  the  organization  of  the  Standard  Oil  Company  of  Ohio  in  1870 — Continued. 

^  (-)  (3)  (4)  (5)  (6)  (7) 


(1) 

Year. 


1904 


1905 

No  date 
given. 


(2) 
Name. 


Arctic  Oil  Works. 

0.  F.  Warner _ 

Star  Oil  Co . 


Memphis  Oil  Co . 

Pierce  &  Canterbury.... 
Southern  Oil  Tank  Line. 


Eastern  Oil  &  Gasoline  Supply 
Co. 


Penn  Oil  Co  . 
Brooks  Oil  Co. 


Illinois  Oil  Co. 
Mutual  Oil  Co. 
Peuss  Oil  Co. . 


Liberty  Oil  Co. 
Funke  Bros. . . . 


Property  and  business  acquired. 


Marketing  business,  Pacific  coast  points 
Marketing  business,  place  not  given.... 
Marketing  business  in  Cincinnati . 


Marketing  business,  Memphis,  Tenn. 

Refinery  at  Boston . 

% 

Marketing  business,  Louisville,  Ky.. 


Marketing  business  in  Boston. 


Marketing  business  at  Los  Angeles,  Cal. . 
Marketing  business  at  Indianapolis. .... 


Marketing  business  at  Joliet . 

Marketing  business,  Dayton,  Ohio. 


Marketing  business,  Baltimore  and 
Washington. 

o 


Marketing  business  in  Boston. 


Marketing  business,  Brooklyn,  N.  Y. 


(4) 

Manner  of  combination  or  acquisition;  whether  ac¬ 
quired  in  whole  or  in  part,  and  amount  paid 
therefor. 


Refined  oil  business  purchased 
Property  purchased . 


Leased  for  one  year,  and  business  turned 
over  to  Standard  of  Kentucky. 


Property  purchased . 

Property  purchased  prior  to  1902. 


Property  purchased  for  about  $7,000  in 
1899  or  earlier. 


Property  purchased  prior  to  1903. 


Property  purchased. 


Property  purchased  about  1904,  for  about 
$5,000. 


Property  purchased . . 

Property  purchased . . 

Property  purchased  about  1901. 


Property  purchased  prior  to  1898. 
Property  purchased  about  1900  . . 


(5) 

Former  owners  of  property  who  there¬ 
upon  received,  stock  in  Standard 
organization. 


(6) 

Whether  plants  were  thereafter  oper¬ 
ated  or  dismantled. 


Discontinued. 
Discontinued . 
Discontinued . 

Discontinued. 
Dismantled . . . 
Discontinued. 


Continued . 


Discontinued . 

Operated  as  bogies  independent . 

Discontinued . 


Discontinued . 

Utilized  as  nucleus  for  bogus 
independent  Home  Safety 
Oil  Delivery  concerns. 

(No  evidence) . 

Operated  as  bogus  independent . 


(7) 

.References. 


2:741,  742. 

2:720;  7:511. 

2:719;  7:511. 

2:723. 

12:718. 

2:715;  7:510. 

12:721. 

2:743. 

2:720;  5:2517;  7:511. 

2:756. 

2:716. 

5:2367. 

3:1511. 

3:1510. 


72719 — 11.  (To  face  page  68.)  No.  17 


o 


